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>Director's impleadment under Section 319 CrPC upheld in cheque dishonour case without separate statutory notice requirement</h1> <h3>BHORANIYA DAMJIBHAI TAPUBHAI Versus SUMERU TRADELINK PVT. LTD. THRO DHRUMIL DEEPAKKUMAR SHAH & ANR.</h3> BHORANIYA DAMJIBHAI TAPUBHAI Versus SUMERU TRADELINK PVT. LTD. THRO DHRUMIL DEEPAKKUMAR SHAH & ANR. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Impleadment of the applicant as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.2. Non-service of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act.3. Delay in filing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Impleadment of the Applicant as Accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.:The applicant, originally accused no.4, was impleaded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. during the course of enquiry. The trial court, based on evidence presented by the State Bank of India officer, found that the applicant was the authorized signatory of the cheques issued by Umiya Ceramics. Consequently, the complainant moved an application (Ex.13) to include the applicant as an accused. The trial court allowed this application on 21.05.2022, joining the applicant as accused no.4.2. Non-service of Statutory Notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act:The applicant contended that no notice under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act was served upon him, making his impleadment as accused legally unsustainable. The applicant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Aneeta Hada & Ors. vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Limited, which mandates notice to each director sought to be impleaded. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court in Krishna Texport & Capital Markets Limited vs. Ila A. Agrawal & Ors. held that individual notices to directors are not required if the company has been served. The trial court found that the applicant, being the signatory of the cheques, was deemed to be aware of the notice received by the company. Therefore, the non-service of notice to the applicant did not invalidate the prosecution.3. Delay in Filing the Application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.:The applicant argued that the application Ex.13 was filed with a significant delay, making it unsustainable. The complaint was filed on 02.08.2014, and the criminal enquiry was registered in 2017. The application to implead the applicant was filed on 05.03.2022. The court noted that the trial court had not taken cognizance of the offence when the application under Section 319 was allowed. The issue of limitation would only apply if the court had taken cognizance of the offence. The cited case of N. Harihara Krishnan vs. J. Thomas was distinguished on its facts, as the trial court in that case had taken cognizance before the application under Section 319 was filed. Therefore, the plea of limitation was not applicable in the present case.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the trial court's order was sustainable and did not constitute an abuse of the process of law. The application to quash the order was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The court upheld the impleadment of the applicant as accused no.4, noting that the statutory notice to the company sufficed and that the delay in filing the application under Section 319 was not a ground for quashing the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
