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 accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by proving a valid stop-payment defence based on alleged inferior quality of goods, and whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out; (ii) whether accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 were vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by proving a valid stop-payment defence based on alleged inferior quality of goods, and whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out.
Analysis: The cheque was admitted, so the statutory presumption arose. To rebut it, the accused had to establish a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The plea that the supplied material was defective was raised belatedly and was unsupported by reliable evidence. No inspection report, test result, account material, or credible communication proving rejection of goods was produced. The electronic mail relied upon by the accused was held inadmissible for want of compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The alleged visit by the complainant's technical expert, even if shown by a visitor entry, did not prove acceptance of defects. The defence therefore remained unsubstantiated.
Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted, the stop-payment instruction was not shown to be justified, and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was proved against the accused firm.
Issue (ii): Whether accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 were vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: The partnership deeds did not show accused no. 2 as a partner or person responsible for the firm's business, and no material established that he was the signatory of the cheque or otherwise in charge of the conduct of business. He was therefore not shown to satisfy the statutory requirements for vicarious liability. As regards accused no. 3, the evidence showed that he was the purchase manager who placed orders on behalf of the firm and was associated with the transaction at the time the cheque was dishonoured. In the context of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court applied the principle that liability attaches to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time, not merely to those holding a designation.
Conclusion: Accused no. 2 was not vicariously liable and stood acquitted, while accused no. 3 was held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was interfered with to the extent that the complaint succeeded against the firm and accused no. 3, while accused no. 2 was absolved; the appeal was therefore allowed only in part.
Ratio Decidendi: A stop-payment defence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act succeeds only if the accused rebuts the statutory presumption by credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities, and vicarious liability under Section 141 attaches only to persons shown to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence.
TaxTMI 
