TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaints under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contained the necessary averments to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioners as directors of the accused company; and (ii) whether the summoning orders were sustainable where they did not disclose application of mind to the role attributed to the petitioners.
Issue (i): Whether the complaints under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contained the necessary averments to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioners as directors of the accused company.
Analysis: Liability of a director for an offence by a company is not automatic. The complaint must specifically aver that, at the time of the offence, the person sought to be proceeded against was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mere designation as a director is insufficient. In the present complaints, there was no specific allegation that the petitioners were signatories to the cheques, involved in their issuance, or responsible for their dishonour. The complaints contained only vague and sweeping assertions, and in some instances the petitioners were not even specifically described in the body of the complaint as directors with a relevant role.
Conclusion: The necessary foundational averments for fastening vicarious criminal liability were absent, so the complaints could not validly proceed against the petitioners on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the summoning orders were sustainable where they did not disclose application of mind to the role attributed to the petitioners.
Analysis: At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate must apply mind to the allegations and the material before it to determine whether a prima facie case exists. A summoning order cannot be mechanical or issued as a matter of course. Here, the summoning orders contained no discussion of any allegation against the petitioners and merely referred to prior summons having been issued. In the absence of specific allegations in the complaints, the orders did not demonstrate any judicial satisfaction that the petitioners had committed an offence even prima facie. The court also noted that some cheques were dishonoured for vague "other reasons", further underscoring the lack of scrutiny at the summoning stage.
Conclusion: The summoning orders were unsustainable because they were passed mechanically without the requisite application of mind.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the summoning orders were quashed, and all proceedings arising from those orders insofar as they concerned the petitioners were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution of a company's directors under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must contain specific averments showing that each accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, and the Magistrate must apply mind to those averments before issuing process.
TaxTMI 
