TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended), it is well settled that it is only the signatory of the allegedly dishonoured cheque who can be made liable in relation thereto. The averments made in the complaint bearing No. 17733/15 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-East) and now bearing no.04/4R/2016 pending in the Rohini Courts as filed by the complainant/the respondent herein, alleges that the petitioner Anil Kingrani and his wife Taruna Kingrani, approached the plaintiff for the sale of Plot bearing No.l402, measuring 32.00 sq. meters in Block & Pocket-C-1, Sector-34, situated in the lay out Plan of Rohini Residential Scheme, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 vide Application No.24187 and application No.23629 for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- and the petitioner herein and his wife being owners of the said plot entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.12.2013 with the complainant and against that agreement, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and two cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- each drawn on Andhra Bank, Pitampura Branch, Delhi and that the petitioner and his wife exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the payment of the said dishonoured cheque. 7. The legal notice dated 20.4.2015 issued on behalf of the complainant (i.e. the respondent herein) indicates that it was in relation to an alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 & Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) in relation to the cheque bearing No.000070 dated 12.3.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Zamrudpur Branch, New Delhi. 8. The complainant (i.e. the respondent herein) averred through the complaint that despite service of the said legal notice, the petitioner did not make the payment of the dishonoured cheque and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 Seciton138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) and as the petitioner was well aware about the issuance of the same and that the cheque would not be honoured on presentation thus the petitioner also committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the complainant. 9. Through the present petition and the oral submissions made, the chief contention of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in question as placed on record is in the form of the copy thereof as Annexure P-6 is indicated to have been issued from the said account No. 41810200000017 from the Bank of Baroda, Zamrudpur Branch with the signatures thereon as of the verified signatures of Taruna Kingrani, proprietor of M/s Thoughts Works Events. 13. In the circumstances, the reliance that has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers private Limited and Another: (2013) 8 SCC 71, wherein it has been categorically observed to the effect: that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) it is only the drawer of the Cheque that can be prosecuted and that the penal provisions have to be strictly construed and no one can be held criminally liable for an act of another with the specific reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the observations in paragraph Nos. 13, 16, 18, 20 and 27 of the said verdict which read to the effect:- "13. In order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, this Court, in Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683, noted the following ingredient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n hand, we are concerned with criminal liability on account of dishonour of a cheque. It primarily falls on the drawer, if it is a Company, then Drawer Company and is extended to the officers of the company. The normal rule in the cases involving criminal liability is against vicarious liability. To put it clear, no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. This normal rule is, however, subject to exception on account of specific provision being made in statutes extending liability to others. For example, Section 141 of the N.I. Act is an instance of specific provision that in case an offence under Section 138 is committed by a company, the criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque will extend to the officers of the company. As a matter of fact, Section 141 contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability can be extended. Inasmuch as the provision creates a criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. In other words, the persons who had nothing to do with the matter, need not be roped in. A company being a juristic person, all its deeds and functions are the result of acts of others. Therefore, the officers of the comp....