Dishonour of Cheque -- Vicarious Liability of Office Bearers -- Mere designation as office bearer insufficient; specific material linking to transaction required
(i) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 141 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Vicarious Liability of Office Bearers -- Mere designation as an office bearer of a company or society is not sufficient to attract Section 141 of the Act. There is no deemed liability merely by virtue of holding an office or position in a company or society. (ii) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Complaint Must Disclose Factual Foundation -- A complaint containing a bald reproduction of statutory language, without factual foundation connecting the accused to the transaction, cannot be sustained. The complaint must nonetheless be read as a whole and not in isolated fragments. (iii) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 141 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Accused Connected Only by Designation -- Where no specific averment or material connects an accused with the transaction beyond a general assertion of his status as an office bearer, such designation alone is insufficient to attract liability under Section 141, and the complaint against him is liable to be quashed. (iv) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 141 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Accused Signatories to Antecedent Financial Documents -- Where accused persons are themselves signatories to antecedent financial documents forming part of the transaction, including the dishonoured cheque or promissory notes and allied payment documents disclosing their participation, this constitutes prima facie material linking them to the underlying transaction, going beyond mere designation, and quashing of the complaint against them is not warranted. (v) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Scope of Inquiry at Quashing Stage -- At the stage of quashing a complaint, the Court does not adjudicate upon the truthfulness of the allegations nor undertake an appreciation of evidence.
LOGIN TO READCaseLawToday.com is powered by M/s Law Herald Infotech
