TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cused against the judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 404 of 2008. 2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentenced imposed on the accused-appellant for offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). 3. The Appellant is the accused whereas the Respondent is the complainant before the trial court. The accused-Ajith Balse is said to be the Managing Director of Tim Tim Far East Export Trading Company Private Limited, Patalganga, Raigad District, Maharashtra, whereas the complainant is the Managing Partner of a concern by name Yermal Fish Trading (YFT), carrying on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. The trial court on appreciating of evidence, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was the Managing Director of Tim Tim Far East Export Trading Company Private Limited. The cheque was issued on behalf of the aforesaid company but the said company was not impleaded as accused in the trial. According to the Appellant, in view of law laid down by this Court in 'Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited' (2012) 5 SCC 661], the prosecution against the Appellant was void ab-initio. 6. In Aneeta Hada's case [2012 (5) SCC 661], the Court, inter alia, held: ".... 53. It is to be borne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove." 7. The said case was also followed in Anil Gupta v. Star India Private Limited and Another 2014 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 642 : 2014 (3) R.C.R. (Crim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and sentence for imprisonment till rising of the Court. Compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded to the complainant jointly by the accused under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for short) in default of payment of compensation to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months was also affirmed. However, the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for thirty days passed by the trial court was quashed and thereby the appeal was partly allowed. 12. As per the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 138 of the Act and should not have been convicted in absence of the Adiwasi Machua Samiti, Sirsida on whose behalf the cheque in question was issued. Learned Counsel for the Appellants relied on the decision of this Court in 'Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited' 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 854 : 2012 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 562 : (2012) 5 SCC 661 and followed by this Court in Anil Gupta v. Star India Private Limited and Anr. 2014 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 642 : 2014 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 587 : 2014 (4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 304 : (2014) 8 SCALE 480. In Aneeta Hada's case [2012 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 854 : 2012 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 562 : 2012 (5) SCC 661], the Court, inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove." Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent while accepting that Adiwasi Machua Samiti,....