2024 (10) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned M.M, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act" hereinafter), which has been upheld by the learned ASJ vide Order dated 13.05.2024 in the Appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the accused was the tenant in the premises of the complainant. In discharge of his liability to pay rent, he issued cheque in question bearing No.000044 dated 10.12.2014 for Rs. 3,33,077/- drawn on HDFC Bank, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana which on presentation was dishonoured for "Funds Insufficient". Despite the service of the Legal Notice, the petitioner failed to make payments and the Complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act got filed. 3. The learned M.M framed the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....C. He also admitted that at the time of issuance of cheque petitioner No. 3 Sukhdeep Singh Bhasin was the Director of petitioner No. 1 Company. 6. It was thus, held by Ld. MM that the petitioners successfully established the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and convicted the petitioners vide judgment dated 10.07.2019 and sentenced them to 2 years SI and fine of Rs.666154/- i.e. double the cheque amount, in default six months imprisonment under Section 138 N.I. Act. It was further directed that Rs.4,66,154/- be released to the complainant while a sum of Rs.2 lakhs be deposited in the Army Relief Fund. 7. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed an Appeal bearing CA No.492/2019 before the learned ASJ who, vide his judgm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company. Vicarious liability of the Directors is not only to be pleaded but also to be proved. If the accused is the Managing Director, there is no necessity to make specific averments as he is liable by virtue of his position, and if the signatory of a cheque is a Director or an Officer, then too no specific averments are required to be made. It is stated that no criminal liability can be fixed on petitioner No. 3. 11. Furthermore, the letter Ex.CW1/C on which the reliance has been placed by both the learned M.M and learned ASJ, had been filed by the Manager of the complainant and the SPA holder had no authority to sign the same. Further, petitioner No. 2 and 3 were not the Directo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of the Company but there were no specific averments of he being actively involved in the day to day affairs of the petitioner No. 1 Company. However, it is not denied that it is a private limited Company of which petitioner No. 2 and 3 were the Directors. The onus was on the petitioners to prove that petitioner No. 2 had no involvement in the affairs of the Company, which it has miserably failed to discharge. 16. In so far as the contention of the petitioners is concerned that the cheque did not bear the signatures of respondent No. 3, but Section 141 N.I. Act clearly states that in the case of Company, the Directors, Manager, Secretary or other Officer of the Company, who are involved in the affairs of the Company are vicariously resp....