TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of order dated 02.09.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby the revision petition moved by the petitioner was dismissed, which was filed against the order dated 13.01.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Since the present petitions have been preferred against common impugned orders dated 13.01.2014 and 02.09.2014, all the petitions are being decided together. 2. The factual matrix, as per record, is that the respondent/ complainant had filed four complaints under Section 138, 139, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Sections 406, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he pre-summoning evidence and the Court below has proceeded only on the basis of averments made in the application. It was further argued that both the Courts below have overlooked the applicability of Sections 138(1)(b), 141 and 142(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was further argued that issuance of legal notice under Section 138(1)(b) of the Act is a mandatory requirement, but in the present case no such notice was ever issued to the petitioner. The complainant deliberately chose to exclude the petitioner from the array of parties as an accused as the complainant was well aware that the petitioner was not involved in day to day operations of Kingfisher Airlines. It was further argued that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tuation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (ILC-2014-SC-CRLJan- 5) observed that : "Thus, in view of the above, we hold that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination in chief and court does not need to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination for it is the satisfaction of the court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the court, in respect of complicity of some other person(s), not facing the trial in the offence." 9. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), the examination in chief of a witness is sufficient to term it as an 'evidence', as mention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (Criminal Appeal No.1220 of 2009), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : "15. If the requirement that such individual notices to the directors must additionally be given is read into the concerned provisions, it will not only be against the plain meaning and construction of the provision but will make the remedy under Section 138 wholly cumbersome. In a given case the ordinary lapse or negligence on part of the Company could easily be rectified and amends could be made upon receipt of a notice under Section 138 by the Company. It would be unnecessary at that point to issue notices to all the directors, whose names the payee may not even be aware of at that stage. Under Second proviso to Section 138, the notice of demand has to be ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive construction such requirement could or ought to be read into Section 138 of the Act...." In National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr. MANU/SC/0112/2010, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that as per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act what is required is that the persons who are sought to be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence under Section 141 should be, at the time the offence was committed, incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Only those persons who were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. The liability arises from being in-charge o....