Company director who signed dishonored cheque cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 as drawer when cheque drawn on company account

The SC upheld the HC's dismissal of a Section 138 NI Act conviction against a company director who signed a dishonored cheque. The court held that only the drawer of a cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138, and an authorized signatory cannot be considered the drawer when the cheque is drawn on a company account. The expression "account maintained by him" requires the account to be in the accused's name, not the company's. Since the cheque was drawn on the hospital's account, not the accused's personal account, Section 138 requirements were not met. The company should have been prosecuted as the principal offender before vicarious liability under Section 141 could apply to the director.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Whether the authorized signatory of a company falls within the ambit of the expression "drawer".
3. Meaning of the expression "on an account maintained by him" used in Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. Scope of the expression "any debt or other liability" appearing in Section 138 of the NI Act.
5. Interpretation of Section 141 of the NI Act regarding vicarious liability.

Detailed Analysis:

i. Section 138 of the NI Act:

The judgment delves into the legislative intent behind Section 138, which aims to enhance the acceptability of cheques by penalizing dishonor due to insufficient funds. The court outlines the necessary ingredients for a Section 138 offence: a cheque must be drawn by a person on an account maintained by him for discharging a debt or liability; it must be presented within six months; and the drawer must fail to pay within 15 days of receiving a notice of dishonor. The court emphasizes that only the drawer of the cheque can be held liable under Section 138, with Section 141 providing an exception for vicarious liability when the drawer is a corporate entity.

ii. Whether Authorized Signatory of a Company Falls Within the Ambit of the Expression "Drawer":

The court clarifies that an authorized signatory of a company cannot be considered the "drawer" under Section 138. The drawer is the entity that maintains the account, not the individual who signs the cheque on its behalf. The judgment references previous rulings, including Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh, to affirm that the liability under Section 138 lies with the drawer, which is the company, not the individual signatory.

iii. Meaning of the Expression "On an Account Maintained by Him" Used in Section 138 of the NI Act:

The court interprets this phrase to mean the account holder's relationship with the bank. An authorized signatory acts on behalf of the company but does not maintain the account personally. The court distinguishes between corporate accounts and joint accounts, noting that in joint accounts, each holder can be liable if they sign the cheque. The court references Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. to support this distinction.

iv. Scope of the Expression "Any Debt or Other Liability" Appearing in Section 138 of the NI Act:

The court emphasizes that Section 138 covers any legally enforceable debt or liability, not limited to personal debts. It discusses cases like Anil Sachar v. Shree Nath Spinners Pvt. Ltd., where the court held that a cheque issued by a company for another's debt could still fall under Section 138 if there was an agreement to assume the debt. The court concludes that the absence of the drawer company as an accused precludes liability under Section 138.

v. Section 141 of the NI Act:

The judgment reiterates that Section 141 creates vicarious liability only when the company, as the primary offender, is prosecuted. The court references Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., which established that the company must be arraigned for its officers to be held liable. The court emphasizes that without the company as an accused, the directors or signatories cannot be prosecuted under Section 138.

Conclusion:

The court concludes that the accused, prosecuted in his individual capacity, cannot be held liable under Section 138 as the cheque was drawn on the company's account. The court affirms the High Court's decision to acquit the accused, noting that the prosecution must include the company as the principal offender. While acknowledging the complainant's predicament, the court suggests the possibility of pursuing a cheating charge against the accused. The appeal is dismissed, with the court leaving open the option for the complainant to file an FIR for cheating.

---