TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5589/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Ernakulam and the appellant in Crl. A. No. 183/2017 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. He calls into question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act). 2. The parties shall be referred to as the complainant and the accused as arraigned before the trial court. 3. The complainant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and it is engaged in manufacturing and distribution of cement. 1st accused is a Private Limited Company. 2nd accused is the Managing Director of the 1st accused company and he is in charge and responsible for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.6 lakhs as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.PC. In default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 7. In the appeal preferred by the 2nd accused as Crl.A. No. 183/2017 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the conviction under Section 138 N.I Act was confirmed, but the sentence was modified. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of one year was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C imposed by the trial court was not interfered with in appeal. 8. Challenging the find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ient'. Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) are the dishonour memos dated 5.4.2011 issued from the bank. PW1 has further testified that upon receipt of Ext.P5 series dishonour memos, the complainant caused to send Ext. P6 notice. Exts. P7 and P7(a) are the postal receipts. Accused accepted the notice. Exts.P8 and P8(a) are the acknowledgement cards. Ext.P9 is the reply notice sent by the accused. According to PW1, in spite of receipt of Ext.P6 lawyer notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Exts.P2 to P4 cheques. 12. Exts.P2 to P4 cheques coupled with Ext.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) dishonour memos issued from the bank would show that Exts.P2 to P4 cheques issued from the account maintained by the 1st accused company were dishonoured due to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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 offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused is the Managing Director of the 1st accused company and he was in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and was managing the business of the 1st accused company at the relevant time. Revision petitioner/A2 is the signatory to Exts.P2 to P4 cheques and it was he who issued Ext.P2 to P4 cheques to the complainant. 17. In Hitesh Verma v. Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 528) the Apex Court held that there are twin requirements under sub-section (1) of Section 141 of N.I. Act. In the complaint, it must be alleged that the person, who is sought to be held liable by virtue of vicarious liability, at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the c....