In my opinion, a Director who signs the cheque issued by the Company on its behalf and thus acts for and on behalf of the company in an important and fundamental act constituting - in combination with other acts - the offence, cannot be absolved from facing the prosecution even if he ceases to a Director, before the period mentioned in the said clause (c) is over. That, a Director who has resigned from the company would have no duty, or means, to pay the amount of the cheque signed by him, though often may be the correct position, it cannot be accepted as a universal truth. Whether he would be vicariously liable by virtue of Section 141 of 12/14 WP 1605.12
the Negotiable Instruments Act, would depend on several factors, such as the understanding between him and the company and/or other Directors, his position vis a vis the company after the resignation etc. Therefore, the mere fact of resignation would be insufficient to quash the proceedings against him. In a given case, indeed, he would not be liable, but this would need to be decided only on the basis of evidence, as may be adduced during the trial. Thus, as a general proposition, it can be safely laid down that the liability of such a Director in the alleged offence can be determined only on the basis of the evidence, as would be adduced during the trial; and therefore, the prosecution against such a Director cannot be permitted to be scuttled at the inception itself.
Bombay High Court
Bindu Kumar Mehta vs Mr.Rishiket Prakash Gujar And ... on 13 August, 2012
Bench: A.M. Thipsay
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused no.3 in Criminal Case No.1009/SS/2011, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 48th Court, Andheri prays that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 17 December 2011 rejecting the 2/14 WP 1605.12
discharge application filed by the petitioner, and the order dated 2 February 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision Application No.105 of 2012, be quashed and set aside.
2. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint has been filed by the respondent no.1 herein. The respondent nos.2 and 3 herein are the accused nos.1 and 2 respectively in the said case. When the trial before the Magistrate was proceeding, the petitioner, on 17 December 2011, made an application for discharge which was rejected by the Magistrate on the same date. The petitioner moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but as aforesaid, by an order dated 2 February 2012, the revision application came to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner is being prosecuted on the basis that he was a Director of the accused no.1 company - Promines Minmet (P) Ltd. The accused no.2 is also being prosecuted as a Director of the said company. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question had been issued by the accused no.1 - company, and that the same had been 3/14 WP 1605.12
signed by the accused no.2 as well as the petitioner, being Directors of the accused no.1 company.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, he had already resigned his position as the Director of the accused company, on 8 October 2010. According to him, this was duly recorded with the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore. Since, admittedly, the cheque in question had been presented to the bank on 21 February 2011, and since it was dishonored thereafter, the applicant was not liable for the same, as on the date of presenting the cheque, he was not a Director of the accused no.1 company, at all.
5. Mr.Sharad Bhattad, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that, there was sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner had already resigned the position of the Director of the accused no.1 company on 8 October 2010 itself. He submitted that 'since the drawer of the cheque was a company, and since the petitioner was being prosecuted only as a Director thereof, and by virtue of the provisions of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was necessary that he should have been the Director of the accused no.1 company at the time when the offence took place'. He 4/14 WP 1605.12
contended that the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be said to be committed only after the cheque would be dishonored, after a demand notice demanding the payment thereof in accordance with clause (b) of the proviso to section 138, is issued to the drawer and the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment thereof within a period of 15 days from the receipt of such notice. According to him, therefore, the fact that on the date of issuing of the cheque, the petitioner was a Director of the accused no.1 company is of no consequence, as at that point of time, no offence had been committed. Thus, his emphasis is on the assertion that when the offence was committed, the petitioner was not the Director of the accused company and therefore, was not in charge of, or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, at that time.
6. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under:-
141. Offences by companies. (1) If the person
committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was
committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the 5/14 WP 1605.12
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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the
offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager,
secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly,
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Smt. Anjali Purav, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 - original complainant, however, submitted that there is no substance in the petition. According to her, the cheque was given to the 6/14 WP 1605.12
complainant on 23 September 2010, which was dated 26 September 2010. It is contended by her that, since on the date of the issuance of the cheque, the petitioner was very much the Director of the accused company and since he is also a signatory to the cheque, he cannot be absolved from the alleged offence only on the ground of his having thereafter resigned from the Directorship of the accused company. She also contended that the accused company is a private limited company, and both the other accused i.e. the petitioner and the accused no.2, are closely related to each other. She therefore, contends that no importance to the aspect of the petitioner having resigned from the position of the Director, after issuing the cheque in question, should be given. She suggested that the resignation could be just to show that the petitioner was no more concerned with the company; and to avoid prosecution with respect to the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 further contended that certain dates are of significance and indicate that the contentions raised by the petitioner, are lacking in bonafides. She pointed out that the complaint was filed on 30 April 2011. The plea of the accused persons including that of the petitioner, was recorded in the month 7/14 WP 1605.12
of July 2011. The affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination in chief of the complainant was filed on 7 October 2011. On the next date i.e. 4 November 2011, the petitioner was absent before the Magistrate, and an adjournment was sought for. The matter was adjourned to 29 November 2011 and on that date also, the petitioner sought an adjournment. The matter was thereafter, fixed on 17 December 2011 for the cross examination of the complainant by the accused persons, but on that day (17 December 2011), the petitioner as well as his advocate, both were absent. Instead, on that date, the petitioner applied for discharge, which application, as aforesaid, was rejected by the Magistrate.
8. I have carefully considered the matter.
9. It is not necessary to go into the question as to how far the material produced by an accused, can be taken into consideration for deciding, whether or not, there are grounds for proceeding against him. I also do not wish to go into the question as to whether it would be appropriate on the part of this Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction just to see the documents tendered by the petitioner and come to a conclusion of the 8/14 WP 1605.12
correctness of a factual assertion, though the same would be contradictory to the assertions made by the complainant in the complaint. This is particularly because no arguments on these points have been advanced. Under the circumstances, it would be proper to proceed by assuming that the petitioner had indeed resigned the position of the Director of the accused company on 8 October 2010.
10. The question is whether the Director who has signed the cheque on behalf of the Company, shall not be liable to be proceeded against, for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if he has resigned before the period of 15 days contemplated under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138. It is true that a reading of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes it clear that in order to be vicariously liable for the offence committed by a company, a person must be in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of its business at the time when the offence was committed. The question, is how the phrase 'at the time the offence was committed' occurring in sub-section (1) of section 141 is to be construed. According to Mr.Bhattad, learned advocate for the petitioner, the offence can be said to be committed 9/14 WP 1605.12
only after the drawer of the cheque would fail to make the payment of the money to the payee, within 15 days of the receipt of a notice of demand, as contemplated by clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If this view is taken, it would mean that even the Director who would resign his position just before the expiry of the period of 15 days, say on the 10 th or 12th day, can be said to be not in-charge of, or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business at the time the offence was committed. It is highly doubtful whether this could have been intended by the legislature. The learned advocate for the petitioner is attempting to interpret the phrase 'at the time the offence was committed' as 'at the time when the offence was completed'. In my opinion, a distinction has to be drawn between these two. The offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comprises of several acts which cannot be separated from one another. It is the combination of all these acts that gives rise to the commission of the offence. The drawing of a cheque and the failure to pay the amount, within the statutory period after receipt of a demand notice, as contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to section 138, both constitute ingredients of the offence in question. That the offence was 'not committed' when the act or acts 10/14 WP 1605.12
constituting one or more - though not all - of the ingredients of the offence took place is difficult to accept.
11. In my opinion, the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be said to have been committed only on a date next after the expiry of the period of 15 though it gets completed at
days, from receipt of the demand notice,
that point of time. It is to be held as having been committed during the period commencing from the issuance of cheque and continuing till its presentation, its dishonor, receipt of demand notice and the failure to pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days after the receipt of such notice.
12. It is not out of place to mention that in the printed prescribed proforma of the First Information Report and the charge-sheet, there is a column for specifying 'the date and time of the occurrence of offence'. Except for the offences which take place only at one point of time, this column always gives the dates as "from (a particular date) to (a particular date)". Thus, the concept that an offence may be said to have been committed during the entire period from its commencement and completion is not an unknown 11/14 WP 1605.12
one and a distinction is often drawn between the period of the commission of the offence and the point of time when the commission of the offence would be complete.
13. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner, who had signed the cheque, was not the Director of the accused company when the offence was committed. Once this is so, he cannot avoid facing the prosecution only on the ground of his having ceased to be a Director when the last act/omission completing the offence, took place.
14. In my opinion, a Director who signs the cheque issued by the Company on its behalf and thus acts for and on behalf of the company in an important and fundamental act constituting - in combination with other acts - the offence, cannot be absolved from facing the prosecution even if he ceases to a Director, before the period mentioned in the said clause (c) is over. That, a Director who has resigned from the company would have no duty, or means, to pay the amount of the cheque signed by him, though often may be the correct position, it cannot be accepted as a universal truth. Whether he would be vicariously liable by virtue of Section 141 of 12/14 WP 1605.12
the Negotiable Instruments Act, would depend on several factors, such as the understanding between him and the company and/or other Directors, his position vis a vis the company after the resignation etc. Therefore, the mere fact of resignation would be insufficient to quash the proceedings against him. In a given case, indeed, he would not be liable, but this would need to be decided only on the basis of evidence, as may be adduced during the trial. Thus, as a general proposition, it can be safely laid down that the liability of such a Director in the alleged offence can be determined only on the basis of the evidence, as would be adduced during the trial; and therefore, the prosecution against such a Director cannot be permitted to be scuttled at the inception itself.
15. There is also another reason for not permitting the prosecution to be quashed in such cases. It is because of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 141. Though the entire focus of the petitioner has been on the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the provisions of sub-section (2) thereof, cannot be lost sight of. Such an aspect would essentially be a question of fact and would need to be decided during the trial. In this case, 13/14 WP 1605.12
admittedly, the demand notice was issued to all the accused, including the petitioner. Though, according to the petitioner, this notice was not served upon him, there is a positive averment in the complaint that the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remark 'Refused to accept'. The copy of the envelope with the postal endorsement has been produced before the Magistrate along with the complaint. The matter would therefore need examination in the light of the provisions of the said sub-section (2).
16. There is also another aspect of the matter. It is not that the petitioner had challenged the issue of process against him. What he is challenging is, the order refusing to discharge him. There is no substance in such a challenge. When the evidence was being recorded, the petitioner could not have insisted that the documents tendered by him - in the midst of the trial and in the midst of the evidence of the complainant, - be considered to return a 'finding' of his not being involved in the alleged offence. The Magistrate was therefore, right in rejecting the application for discharge. The Form No.32 and other relevant documents can always be produced by the petitioner when the stage of adducing defence evidence comes. 14/14 WP 1605.12
17. The Addl. Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner, also observed that when the plea had been recorded, evidence had been produced by the complainant, the defence of the accused was to be established by cross examination of the witnesses, and by further adducing defence evidence, if so advised, but, not by simply showing some documents to the Court in the midst of the complainant's evidence. This view of the Addl.Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
18. The jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution, is of extraordinary nature. It is not an appellate or revisional jurisdiction. It is conferred on this Court to ensure that the sub-ordinate courts function within the bounds of their authority. Neither the Magistrate, nor the Addl. Sessions Judge can be said to have acted in excess of their jurisdiction, or have abused the same. Consequently, no case for interfering with the impugned orders, is made out.
19. Rule is discharged.
20. Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY,J)
No comments:
Post a Comment