TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Managing Director not liable alone under Section 138 NI Act. Company must also be accused. Lower court decisions overturned.</h1> <h3>RADHAKRISHNAN PARAPPURATH Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> RADHAKRISHNAN PARAPPURATH Versus STATE OF KERALA - TMI Issues involved: Criminal Revision Petitions u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Liability of Managing Director without company being arraigned as an accused.Summary:The judgment pertains to three Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the accused, who is the Managing Director of a company, challenging their conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused issued three cheques on behalf of the company, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Magistrate convicted the accused, leading to the filing of Criminal Appeal Nos. 718, 719 & 720 of 2011, which were subsequently dismissed. The main contention raised by the accused was that a prosecution u/s 138 would not lie against the Managing Director without the company also being accused, citing a Supreme Court decision in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The complainant contended that since the accused signed and issued the cheques, he is liable for prosecution under Section 138. However, the Court, in light of the Supreme Court decision referenced by the accused, held that the Managing Director cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 without the company being arraigned as an accused. As the company was not made an accused in this case, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside.The Court acknowledged the evolving legal landscape on this issue, noting the differing opinions of judges prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Aneetha Hada's case. Therefore, the Court remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal, directing that the company should also be arraigned as an accused in the three cases. The accused were given the opportunity to continue the prosecution after complying with this requirement. The amounts deposited by the accused before the Magistrate would remain in deposit until the cases are disposed of afresh. The Criminal Revision Petitions were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
