Court rejects plea on maintainability, upholds liability of individual proprietor under NI Act

The court rejected the plea regarding the maintainability of the complaint for not naming the Proprietary concern as an accused, clarifying the liability of the individual proprietor. It found that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by providing contradictory statements and lacking supporting evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, and directed the trial court to secure the accused for imprisonment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the complaint for omission to array the Proprietary concern Sudha Gas Agency as accused.
2. Sufficiency of mere denial of facts regarding the transaction to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Complaint:
The first issue addressed whether the complaint was maintainable despite not naming the Proprietary concern Sudha Gas Agency as an accused. The court rejected this plea outright, clarifying that Section 141 of the N.I. Act pertains to offenses committed by companies, which are distinct legal entities capable of suing and being sued. In contrast, a proprietorship concern is not a juristic body but an individual operating under a trade name. Thus, the individual who issues the cheque as the proprietor is solely liable for prosecution. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in *Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited* to support this distinction, emphasizing that the concept of vicarious liability applies to companies but not to proprietorship concerns.

2. Rebuttal of Statutory Presumption:
The second issue examined whether mere denial of facts regarding the transaction was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The court noted that the cheques (Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9) were related to the accused's accounts, and the signatures on these cheques were not denied. The appellate court had disbelieved the purpose of the cheques based on variations in ink and handwriting. However, the court emphasized Section 20 of the N.I. Act, which presumes that a person signing a blank or incomplete negotiable instrument authorizes the holder to complete it.

The court found that the accused failed to substantiate his defense that the cheques were stolen by the complainant. The accused had closed the relevant accounts before the cheques were presented and only alleged the theft through a public notice after the cheques were returned. The accused did not provide evidence of informing the banks about the missing cheques a year earlier, as claimed in the public notice. The court also noted the accused's failure to prove his alibi that he was in Chennai on the date the cheques were allegedly handed over.

The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in *Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets* and *Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda*, emphasizing that the accused must bring on record facts and circumstances to rebut the presumption of consideration and debt. The accused's contradictory statements and failure to produce supporting evidence led the court to conclude that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was not rebutted.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, dated 06.02.2014, and restored the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Tuticorin, dated 20.09.2013. The trial court was directed to secure the respondent/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the period of sentence.

---