TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the N.I Act'), and modified the sentence and reduced it into imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 10 lakh with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months with a direction that, if the fine amount is paid, it shall be given to the complainant/1st respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. C.C. No. 695 of 2000 was based on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, with regard to dishonour of Ext.P2 cheque dated 20.02.2000 issued by the revision petitioner as the Managing Director of Omnitech Information Systems Pvt. Ltd towards discharge of Rs. 10 lakh due to the 1st respondent/ complainant, from the 1st accused-company. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 138 of the N.I Act and modifying and reducing the substantive sentence into imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs. 10 lakh. The appeal filed by the 5th accused as Crl. Appeal No. 230 of 2005 was also allowed, setting aside his conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I Act. So, in effect only the conviction of the revision petitioner/2nd accused was upheld by the appellate court, though his substantive sentence was modified and reduced, and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakh, against which, he has come up with this revision. 8. Now this Court is called upon to verify the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 226 of 2005, which upheld t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im, that cheque was issued towards discharge of the amount due to him, from the 1st accused-company. He presented the cheque for collection, but it was dishonoured, for the reason "funds insufficient" and "property not marked". He sent notice to the accused persons, as envisaged under Section 138(b) of the N.I Act. The notice was accepted by the revision petitioner (A2), and accused Nos. 3 and 5. Notice to the 1st accused-company returned with the endorsement 'addressee left'. Notice to the 4th accused was also returned 'unserved'. In spite of receipt of notice by the revision petitioner, no reply was sent, and the amount was not repaid. So the 1st respondent/ complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rict 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 vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a Direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....junctively and the same ought be read conjunctively in view of use of the word "and" in between." 19. In Pramod v. Velayudhan (2005 (4) KLT SN 96 Case No. 128) this Court held that, to hold a person guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act by virtue of Section 141 of the N.I Act, the first and foremost requirement to be established is commission of the offence by another person i.e. a company, firm or association of individuals. Unless and until, it is established that such juristic person commits offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, no person referred to in Section 141 of the N.I Act can be proceeded against, summoned, prosecuted or convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act. In other words, commission of offenc....