Hi Guest , Click Here to Read the rest of this document
2001 4 AllMR 880 ; 2001 BomCR(Cri) 79
Supreme Court of India
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
R. Rajagopal —Appellant
versus
S.S. Venkat —Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 170-172 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3142-3144 of 1999)
Decided on 11-2-2000
Act Referred :NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138, S.141
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 141—Dishonour of cheque—Offence by Company—Not making company on whose behalf cheque was issued—Cannot be ground to quash proceedings.
Result : Order accordingly.
Result : Order accordingly.
Cases Referred:
Order - Referred
Leave granted. - Referred
2. The only ground on which the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, , 1881 has been quashed by the High Court is that the Company (the partnership firm in this case) on whose behalf the cheque was issued was not made an accused in the complaint. Respondent who is the partner has been made an accused. - Referred
3. The aforesaid stand of the High Court cannot now be sustained in view of the pronouncement of law on the subject in Anil Handa v. India Acrylic Limited1. - Referred
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent then submitted that there are other contentions which Respondent has to raise as against the prosecution. We are not disposed to deal with all those contentions, for, , it is open to the Respondent to raise such contentions in the trial Court. - Referred
5. In the result we set aside the impugned judgment and direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial. - Referred
6. The appeals are disposed of. - Referred
Order accordingly. - Referred
(C.R.) - Referred