TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is a Partnership firm engaged in the business of processing, for textiles in the name of M/s.Sree Suganya Knit Compacters and A1 company viz., M/s.Seven Hills Fashions Private Limited is a private limited concern and engaged in the business of manufacturing of ready made garments. A2 and the petitioner/A3 are the Managing Director and Director of A1 company. The petitioner/A3 is wife of A2. The accused have dealt with the respondent in the business of processing garments on credit basis. Due to the transactions, a sum of Rs. 93,204/- and Rs. 8,21,690/- had become due and payable by the accused. 3.In discharge of the said legally enforceable liability in part, A2 issued one cheque bearing number 953489, dated 07.09.2012, for a sum of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex Court had reiterated the principals in "National Small Industries Corporation Limited reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330" and held that "essential averment to be made in the complaint and it is necessary to aver that at the time the offence was committed the present accused was incharge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company.". Further, the provision under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is an exception to normal rule that no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. Further, in the case of dishonour of cheque and offence made by company, vicarious liability on the part of the accused, must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. These are the guidelines and vital facts to be found in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odged by the respondent except mentioning the magical word that the accused are incharge of the management and affairs of the company, there is nothing more. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid the guidelines in "S.M.S Pharmaceuticals", which is extracted below:- "17.K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. [(2001) 10 SCC 218 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1038] was a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was found that the allegations in the complaint did not in express words or with reference to the allegations contained therein make out a case that at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. It was held that the requirement of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind. These provisions create a statutory presumption of dishonesty, exposing a person to criminal liability if payment is not made within the statutory period even after issue of notice. It is also true that the power of quashing is required to be exercised very sparingly and where, read as a whole, factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, it should not be quashed. All the same, it is also to be remembered that it is the duty of the court to discharge the accused if taking everything stated in the complaint as correct and construing the allegations made therein liberally in favour of the complainant, the ingredients of the offence are altogether lacking. The present case falls in this category as would be evident f....