2021 (9) TMI 1373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s call in question proceedings in C.C.No.4950/2016 and C.C. No. 5285/2016, both for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Section 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). 2. In Crl.P.No.6526/18 between the years 2012 and 13.11.2015 the complainant registered to a 5 lakh chit scheme in M/s. Shreyas Hind Chits Pvt. Ltd., a Company which was running chit fund business. In November 2015, the complainant was informed by the Company that the Company has ceased all its chit fund business. The complainant claims to have enquired into the affairs of the Company and got to know about certain legal proceedings pending against the Managing Director of the Company and other accused including th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the case of Aneeta Hada V. Godfather Travels And Tours Private Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 661] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "39. The word "deemed" used in Section 141 of the Act applies to the company and the persons responsible for the acts of the company. It crystallizes the corporate criminal liability and vicarious liability of a person who is in charge of the company. What averments should be required to make a person vicariously liable has been dealt with in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [(2005) 8 SCC 89 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975] In the said case, it has been opined that the criminal liability on account of dishonour of cheque primarily falls on the drawee (sic drawer) company and is extended to the officers of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Labour Department against the petitioner as an individual without making the company, in  which he is a member on Board, are maintainable? 10. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ANEETA HADA (supra) while considering a case arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has held as follows: "Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words "as well as the company" appearing in the section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vic....