TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by learned metropolitan magistrate (N.I. Act), West District, in CC no. 194/1/12 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months along with payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to complainant and in default thereof further simple imprisonment of three months. 2. Case of complainant/respondent, inter-alia, is that it is a proprietorship firm, engaged in the business of silicon spray etc., filed a criminal complaint bearing No. 194/1/12 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner/accused alleging that aagainst outstanding liability, the accused/petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poor as required under section 141 of the NI Act, hence the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed summarily. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in addition to above, accused company, during pendency of the criminal complaint, was wound up vide order dated 23.02.2016 in C.P. No. 463/13. 5. It is further submitted that learned trial court as well as Appellate Court have failed to marshal entire evidence led by the parties in the right and true perspective and have not given any cogent and adequate reasons for discarding defense of petitioner. Judgment of conviction passed by learned trial court and upheld by Appellate Court is not sustainable, keeping in view settled law and also material infirmities in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t drawer of the cheque i.e. M/s Bellpoly Moulders Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, in the complaint, there is no averment that petitioner is responsible for day to day affairs of the company. As per Section 141 of the NI Act, company must be arrayed as accused and in absence of the company being arrayed as an accused, complaint against the director or proprietor is not maintainable. 8. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Vijay Power Generators Limited Vs. Tarun Engineer Syndicate: 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2957 "14. In the complaint relevant to Crl. A. Nos.1433/2013; 1434/2013; 1435/2013; 1436/2013 only M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate was prosecuted. Though the firm was prosecuted through Mr. Tarun Seth, he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arraigning the company as an accused. 12. The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. 13. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the co....