TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001991-2022 CRM-M-16830-2023 Criminal Complaint No.266 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001994-2022 CRM-M-16833-2023 Criminal Complaint No.269 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001997-2022 CRM-M-16848-2023 Criminal Complaint No.270 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001998-2022 CRM-M-16849-2023 Criminal Complaint No.261 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001999-2022 CRM-M-16863-2023 Criminal Complaint No.264 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001992-2022 CRM-M-16888-2023 Criminal Complaint No.267 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001995-2022 CRM-M-16891-2023 Criminal Complaint No.257 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001985-2022 CRM-M-27482-2023 Criminal Complaint No.211 of 2022 filed on 12.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001677-2022 CRM-M-27940-2023 Criminal Complaint No.181 of 2022 filed on 05.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001499-2022 CRM-M-27481-2023 Criminal Complaint No.181 of 2022 filed on 15.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001497-2022 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M-40574-2023 Criminal Complaint No.263 of 2022 filed on 19.09.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001991-2022 CRM-M-40582-2023 Criminal Complaint No.1988 of 2022 filed on 29.08.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001993-2022 CRM-M-40586-2023 Criminal Complaint No.214 of 2022 filed on 12.07.2022 bearing CNR No.PBTTA1-001674-2022 1. This order shall dispose of all the above mentioned petitions, as per the details of criminal complaint mentioned as above. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CRM-M-16624-2023. 2. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in the complaint captioned above, the accused has come up before this Court under section 482 CrPC for its quashing, submitting that the petitioner had no role in the firm's business, the other partner was the signatory of the cheque and was also the sole proprietor of the business, which fact is proved from the complaint, resultantly, the petitioner could not have been summoned for the alleged offense, which he never committed. 3. During the course of the business, certain cheques were handed over to the complainant, including the cheque in question, which bounced, leading to the issuance of notice and sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was issued in discharge of the liability of M/s JK Industries, in which the petitioner is admittedly a partner. The petitioner cannot escape his liability as the liability of each and every partner in a partnership firm is joint and several." 9. A perusal of the above makes it explictly clear that the petitioner was neither the signatory nor the proprietor of the firm which issued two cheques in question, as has been specifically mentioned in para 5 of the complaint supra. 10. Before anyone can be summoned to face a criminal trial, the Magistrate must search for primafacie legally admissible evidence, which attributes some role that makes out a penal offense. 11. In the present case, the complainant is silent about the petitioner's role and there is no evidence pointing out the petitioner's criminal liability with the cheque. 12. In Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [9]. Three categories of persons can be discerned from the said provision [141 NIA] who are brought within the purview of the penal liability through the legal fiction envisaged in the Section. They are: (1) The company which committed the offence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the company. In such a prosecution the accused can show that the company has not committed the offence, though such company is not made an accused, and hence the prosecuted accused is not liable to be punished. The provisions do not contain a condition that prosecution of the company is sine qua non for prosecution of the other persons who fall within the second and the third categories mentioned above. No doubt a finding that the offence was committed by the company is sine qua non for convicting those other persons. But if a company is not prosecuted due to any legal snag or otherwise, the other prosecuted persons cannot, on that score alone, escape from the penal liability created through the legal fiction envisaged in Section 141 of the Act. 13. In Smt. Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers & Chem. Travancore Ltd., (2002) 7 SCC 655, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [5]. In short the partner of a firm is liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any negle....