Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960, in fact, embrace in its sweep
term `officer' to mean and include, a person
ig
elected or appointed by a society to any office of
such society according to its bylaws; and includes a
chairman, vicechairman, president, vicepresident,
managing director, manager, secretary, treasurer,
member of the committee, and any other person elected
or appointed under this Act, the rules or the by
laws, to give directions in regard to the business of
such society. In the light of this definition, the
status of the applicant, visavis, Vyankat society,
is primarily indicated. The applicant is vicariously
liable to affairs of company as he was at the
material time responsible to the affairs of society
as a Chairman and he was drawer of the cheque. Any
subsequent change in status will not be detrimental
to the complainant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ritesh s/o Deoram Patil
VERSUS
Dhanvantari Urban Co.op.
Credit Society Ltd.,
22nd JANUARY,2013.
Heard both the Criminal Applications
finally. No notice to respondent No.1 – Credit
Co.op. society.
2)
The applicant has questioned process under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for
short, the Act) dated 17.10.2007 issued by learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal in both the
cases.
3)
The applicant has not resorted to the
available remedy of revision before the learned
4)
District Judge.
The respondent No.1 – Dhanvantari Urban Co
op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhusawal had invested an
amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/ with Vyankat Urban Credit
Co.op. Society Ltd. (for short, Vyankat society) on
27th March, 2006. The deposit was to accrue interest
@ 10.5%. An advance cheque in respect of said deposit
and also accrued interest of Rs.11,43,756/ was
ig
issued by the applicant – Ritesh on 28.3.2006 in the
capacity as Chairman of Vyankaresh society.
After expiry of period of the deposit, the
said cheques were deposited in Jalgaon Janata Co
operative Society Ltd., Branch Bhusawal for
encashment. Both the cheques were dishonoured with
endorsement "Refer to drawer, funds insufficient".
This was followed with statutory notice. However, it
was not accepted and returned as "not claimed" on
22.8.2007. Hence, complaint, petition, and as stated
above, issuance of the process.
6)
The bone of contention of Mr. Salunke, the
learned Counsel for the applicant, is, on 4.4.2006,
and 25.5.2006 the applicant has resigned from the
post of Chairman and Director respectively of the
Vyankat society. New elections were held and
thereafter, by notification in local newspaper dated
12.6.2006 (notice dated 10.6.2006), the names of new
officebearers and Directors of Vyankaresh society
are informed to the public and consequently, no
liability could be saddled upon the applicant –
On 17.10.2007, which is the date of the
verification, the applicant was not Chairman of the
society. The transaction was with the Vyankat society
and it is not arrayed as accused. Consequently, no
cause of action arose.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance to the following judgments:
ig
(a) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours pvt.
Ltd. 2003(2)Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 24 (S.C.): 2012 (5) SCC
661;
(b) P.C.Agarwala Vs. Payment of Wages Inspector, M.P.
And Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3576;
(c) Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in group of writ petitions, one of the petition
being WP No.5223/2009 (decided on 22nd December, 2010)
The learned Counsel has also canvassed, in
the light of definition of `officer' under Section
2(20) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960, there cannot be vesting/fastening of
responsibility upon the applicant.
Basically, the subject complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is
filed against Vyankat society, through an authorized
signatory – Ritesh Deorao Patil, Chairman of the
Vyankat society. The accused No.2 – is Abhay Jayant
Shravage, Manager of Vyankat society, consequently,
it cannot be said that society is not prosecuted.
The ThreeJudges Bench judgment in the
matter of Aneeta Hada (cited supra), conceived the
situation, where, a company/society is not arrayed as
accused in terms of Section 138 or 141 of the Act. In
that event, it was held, "liability of Director
flows necessarily from the company. Company is a
juristic person and in the absence of company arrayed
as accused, there could not be a liability solely
fastened against the Director. The text of the
complaint is narrated herein before. In unequivocal
terms, Vyankat society is arrayed as accused. The
ig
name of the applicant is also referred as accsued and
as authorized signatory. Applicant was a drawer of
the cheques.
The applicant's resignation subsequent to
issuance of the cheque will not dilute primary
liability to answer as drawer of the cheque issued in
favour of the payee in discharge of legally
enforceable liability. The verification, to which
reference is given, cannot be faulted as there could
not be any communication to the original complainant
in respect of change of status of the applicant. The
public notice in newspaper, has no legal sanctity.
The resignation and resolution, to which reference is
given by the learned Counsel, are not a public
document. If they stand in the definition of `public
document', the picture would have been quite
different.
The legal position is also explained in the
matter of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley
and Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 351, by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in respect of exercise of powers by the Court.
The Hon'ble Lordships observed that an ExDirector
cannot be made accountable and fastened with
liability for anything done by company after
acceptance of his resignation by company. In
paragraph 25, it is observed, "It is fairly settled
now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section
397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought
to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to
consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an
enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations.
However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of
the documents – which are beyond suspicion or doubt –
placed by the accused, the accusations against him
cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the
accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to
prove his defence before the trial court. In such a
matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent
injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may
look into the materials which have significant
bearing on the matter at prima facie stage."
The Full Bench of this Court, way back in
2008, in the matter of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs.
State of Maharashtra – 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 856, has also
clarified the legal position.
14)
The ThreeJudges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs.
L.Muniswamy and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1489, observed, "
In the exercise of the wholesome power under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse
of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice requires that the proceeding ought to be
quashed."
Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960, in fact, embrace in its sweep
term `officer' to mean and include, a person
elected or appointed by a society to any office of
such society according to its bylaws; and includes a
chairman, vicechairman, president, vicepresident,
managing director, manager, secretary, treasurer,
member of the committee, and any other person elected
or appointed under this Act, the rules or the by
laws, to give directions in regard to the business of
such society. In the light of this definition, the
status of the applicant, visavis, Vyankat society,
is primarily indicated. The applicant is vicariously
liable to affairs of company as he was at the
material time responsible to the affairs of society
as a Chairman and he was drawer of the cheque. Any
subsequent change in status will not be detrimental
to the complainant.
Learned counsel interrupts and says, he has
also referred to section 73(1) of the Maharashtra Co
operative Societies Act.
At page 30 of the petition, a statutory
notice in terms of Section 73(3) of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, is enclosed while page 31
of the petition refers the names of newly elected
body members.
For satisfaction of the learned Counsel,
Section 73(1) is reproduced, as under:
"73(1)
The management of every
society shall vest in a committee,
constituted in accordance with this
Act, the rules and byelaws, which
shall exercise such powers and perform
such duties as may be conferred or
imposed respectively by this Act, the
rules and the byelaws."
Reading both the provisions, it does not
attract primarily that there is no liability of the
applicant. The scheme and purport of Section 138 and
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, should be
properly digested before embarking to no liability.
In the matter of P.C.Agarwala (cited supra),
the liability of the Directors was fixed in respect
of payment of wages of the employees. The Apex court
did not approve the same, as the term "occupier" used
in Factories Act, has not been taken care of by the
High Court.
In the Writ Petition No.5223/2009, this
Court was dealing with directions issued by Consumer
Forum in different proceedings, holding the Directors
of the Credit Cooperative Society personally liable
to refund deposits of the investors. These judgments,
in the above backdrop of the events, will not apply
to the present proceedings.
Testing on these parameters and touchstone,
the factual matrix illustrated herein above does not
call for interference in the order of issue of
process.
The Criminal Applications lack merit,
dismissed. The observations are prima facie in
ig
nature.
sd/
(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment