TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udge, Court No. 17, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 552 of 2018 (Dhirendra Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and to quash the summoning order dated 28.3.2012 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1500 of 2011 pending in the court of Additional Court No. 3, Agra. 2. Brief facts of this case are as follows-: That respondent no. 2 stated that present petitioner borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and on 8.2.2011, the petitioner handed over two cheques bearing no. 850213 & 850214 dated 9.4.2011 and 15.4.2011, respectively. Cheques were presented before the Bank but the same were dishonoured due to insufficient amount in the account. ON 18.10.2011, respondent no. 2 sent a notice to the petitioner and same was served but all in vain. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 20[within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal capacity. It is further submitted that cheques were given by petitioner by way of security for payment of money. So in these circumstances, no need to arraign the firm as a party. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. S.B. Maurya, the learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of cheques shows that it is drawn by the petitioner and petitioner admitted that impugned cheques bearing his signature. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is proprietor of the firm M/s M/s Rashmi Arosole & Chemicals, main contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution could not launch unless and until the firm arraign as accused. The provision of Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,- (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.]" 9. A plain reading of the provision makes it clear, if the person committing the offence is a "company", in that event every natural person responsible for such commission as also the artificial person namely the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Also, certain other natural persons may be held guilty, if so proved. 10.Perusal of the registration of firm, Annexure n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by an individual or a person for the purpose of conducting a particular activity. With or without such trade name, it (sole proprietary concern) remains identified to the individual who owns it. It does not bring to life any new or other legal identity or entity. No rights or liabilities arise or are incurred, by any person (whether natural or artificial), except that otherwise attach to the natural person who owns it. Thus it is only a 'concern' of the individual who owns it. The trade name remains the shadow of the natural person or a mere projection or an identity that springs from and vanishes with the individual. It has no independent existence or continuity. 14. In the context of an offence under section 138 of the Act, ....