2019 (5) TMI 569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act, 1881"), was issued to the private respondent-non applicant. 3. The short facts of the case are that a complaint was preferred by SM Enterprises-the petitioner herein against Sajel Glass Limited- A Company and its six Directors. The complaint inter alia was for the reason that Sajel Glass Limited had given a cheque on 16.1.2017 of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant, which was deposited in its account in Indian Bank, Raipur. The said cheque was not honoured and a notice of dishonour was received by the petitioner on 17.1.2017. Subsequently, a mandatory notice under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 was sent to the accused on 31.1.2017. The summons were received by the accused on 6.2.2017 and des....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Texport and Capital Markets Limited (supra) would clearly be applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that if it is the case of the Directors that the offence was committed without their knowledge or they have exercised their due diligence to prevent such commission of offence, it would be a matter of defence, which would be considered at the time of evidence. 5. It may be noted that though it is a private complaint, the State is a party. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order is well merited and do not call for any interference. He relied on the judgment in the matter of Ashoke Mal Bafna Vs. Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineerin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not be of much help to the petitioner if it is compared to the averments in the complaint. The Supreme Court in such case held that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is a Company, every Director of such company who was incharge of and responsible to that Company for conduct of its business shall be deemed to be guilty and vicarious liability would be on the juristic entity as the Company is run by living person. It however does not dilute the ratio that the averments to the effect that the Directors how are responsible have to be made. It was further held that if the mandatory notice is issued to the Company when the cheque is bounced, then, in such case, every notice to the Directors would not be nece....