HC Set Aside Director’s Conviction for Cheque Dishonour as Co. Wasn’t Made an Accused or Served Notice u/s 138 NI Act
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 26 December, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Paresh Manna v. State of West Bengal [2024] 169 taxmann.com 525 (HC-Calcutta)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
-
Satadru Lahiri, Safdar Azam, Syed Wasim Faruque, Jyotirmay Talukder for the Petitioner.
-
Aritra Bhattacharya, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner was a director of a company ‘SHPL’ which had taken a loan from the complainant. In the discharge of its liability, the petitioner issued a cheque which was dishonoured on presentation.
The Complainant issued a notice to the petitioner and filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act and appeal against the said order was dismissed.
The petitioner filed an instant revision contending that the complaint was not maintainable as company ‘SHPL’ had not been arraigned as accused in the instant case though the cheque was issued on behalf of the company.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the company had not been made an accused nor was any notice served upon the company, though the cheque was issued on behalf of the company and the petitioner had been made an accused as person, who signed and issued the cheque, in absence of company being arraigned as an accused, complaint against petitioner was not maintainable. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner was to be set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 797 [Para 32]; followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 (para 22)
- Charanjit Pal Jindal v. L.N. Metalics (2015) 15 SCC 768 (para 22)
- Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh v. Vijay D. Salvi (2015) 9 SCC 622 (para 22)
- J.V. Baharuni and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2014) 10 SCC 494 (para 24).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
