TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the concerned. 2. Since upon presentation of Annexure P-5, it became declined to be honoured, as such, after the apposite statutory notice being served upon the petitioner, a complaint existing at Annexure P-1, of the instant petition became instituted by the aggrieved complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. 3. Subsequent to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, making application of mind to the complaint, and, to the documents/material appended therewith, besides upon his making an application of mind to the preliminary evidence, as became adduced by the complainant, rather proceeded to issue a summoning order upon the accused-petitioner herein. The summoning order is appended as Annexure P-2 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n making the above argument, he rests them upon the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short call 'the Act'), provisions whereof became extracted hereinafter. [141 Offences by companies. - (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and 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 accordingly. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the sole proprietary entity concerned, is the principal offender, whereas, the other natural, or, non juristic persons, can become arrayed as an accused alongwith it, merely on the touchstone of vicarious liability becoming attracted upon them, and, as arises from the dishonour of the negotiable instrument concerned. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, has argued, that a keen perusal of the provisions of Section 141 of 'the Act' does not disclose, that they are applicable to a sole proprietary entity concerned, and, as such, he argues that the petition complaint instituted in the name of the accused petitioner herein, and, also his being described to be the proprietor of M/s. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purpose of application thereons of Section 141 of 'the Act', but also a firm, or, other association of individuals, do also, become covered by Section 141 of 'the Act', besides a partner in a firm when is given the colour of a Director of a firm, also does become covered for the relevant purpose. 14. In consequence, even the sole proprietary entity namely M/s Thind Traders, though is obviously solitarily owned by Sardar Bhupender Singh, yet, the said juristic person, or, legal entity rather becomes 'a person' committing an offence under Section 138, and, besides the said juristic person, is also a 'Company'. Therefore, not only the juristic entity concerned, was amenable for being arrayed as an acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal provisions and a penalty is not to be imposed affecting the rights of persons whether juristic entities or individuals, unless they are arrayed as accused. It is to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is vested in the legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of commission of offence by the company. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the use of the term "as well as" in the Section is of immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings in the company as well as the director and/or other officers who are responsible for the acts of the company and, therefore, a prosecution against the directors or other officers is tenable even if the company is not arraign....