oppn parties Cheque Bouncing And Company Directors

News Snippets

  • Chess World title match: Ding Liren salvages a sraw in the 7th game which he almost lost
  • Experts speculate whether Ding Liren wants the world title match against D Gukesh to go into tie-break after he let off Gukesh easily in the 5th game
  • Tata Memorial Hospital and AIIMS have severely criticized former cricketer and Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu for claiming that his wife fought back cancer with home remedies like haldi, garlic and neem. The hospitals warned the public for not going for such unproven remedies and not delaying treatment as it could prove fatal
  • 3 persons died and scores of policemen wer injured when a survey of a mosque in Sambhal near Bareilly in UP turned violent
  • Bangladesh to review power pacts with Indian companies, including those of the Adani group
  • The Indian envoy in Bangladesh was summoned by the country's government over the breach in the Bangladesh mission in Agartala
  • Bank account to soon have 4 nominees each
  • TMC and SP stayed away from the INDIA bloc protest over the Adani issue in the Lok Sabha
  • Delhi HC stops the police from arresting Nadeem Khan over a viral video which the police claimed promoted 'enmity'. Court says 'India's harmony not so fragile'
  • Trafiksol asked to refund IPO money by Sebi on account of alleged fraud
  • Re goes down to 84.76 against the USD but ends flat after RBI intervenes
  • Sin goods like tobacco, cigarettes and soft drinks likely to face 35% GST in the post-compensation cess era
  • Bank credit growth slows to 11% (20.6% last year) with retail oans also showing a slowdown
  • Stock markets continue their winning streak on Tuesday: Sensex jumps 597 points to 80845 and Nifty gains 181 points to 24457
  • Asian junior hockey: Defending champions India enter the finals by beating Malaysia 3-1, to play Pakistan for the title
  • Chess World title match: Ding Liren salvages a sraw in the 7th game which he almost lost
  • Experts speculate whether Ding Liren wants the world title match against D Gukesh to go into tie-break after he let off Gukesh easily in the 5th game
  • Tata Memorial Hospital and AIIMS have severely criticized former cricketer and Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu for claiming that his wife fought back cancer with home remedies like haldi, garlic and neem. The hospitals warned the public for not going for such unproven remedies and not delaying treatment as it could prove fatal
  • 3 persons died and scores of policemen wer injured when a survey of a mosque in Sambhal near Bareilly in UP turned violent
  • Bangladesh to review power pacts with Indian companies, including those of the Adani group
  • The Indian envoy in Bangladesh was summoned by the country's government over the breach in the Bangladesh mission in Agartala
  • Bank account to soon have 4 nominees each
  • TMC and SP stayed away from the INDIA bloc protest over the Adani issue in the Lok Sabha
  • Delhi HC stops the police from arresting Nadeem Khan over a viral video which the police claimed promoted 'enmity'. Court says 'India's harmony not so fragile'
  • Trafiksol asked to refund IPO money by Sebi on account of alleged fraud
Australia thrassh India in the 4th Test, dim their chances of making the WTC finals, Rohit, Virat and Rahul fail once again
oppn parties
Cheque Bouncing And Company Directors

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2019-03-11 21:12:12

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
A limited company is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law. Still, it is run by living people. Hence, the law provides a remedy to move against the directors who run the company, in addition to moving against the company, in certain cases. Cheque bouncing cases under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) fall under this category. It is expressly provided in sub-section 1 of sec. 141 that “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 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.” If a director was in charge of the affairs of the company at the time a cheque was issued and if it was subsequently returned unpaid on presentation in due course of business, the company and the director will both be punishable under the said sections of the NI Act, in addition to other laws in force.

The Supreme Court, in the recent judgment in the case A R Radhakrishna versus Dasari Deepthi & others, granted leave to the appellant by overruling the order of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court that had quashed his complaint against the directors of a company in a cheque bouncing case. The court reiterated that "in a case pertaining to an offence under S. 138 and S. 141 of the Act, the law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time when the offence was committed. The High Court, in deciding a quashing petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C., must consider whether the averment made in the complaint is sufficient or if some unimpeachable evidence has been brought on record which leads to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. "

In the instant case, the appellant had moved court when 7 cheques issued to him by M/s. Dhruti Infra Projects Ltd and signed by the authorized signatory, who was the managing director, on behalf of the company, were returned unpaid by the bankers with the remark that the payee had “stopped payment.” The counsel for the respondents contended that are only non­executory Directors of the company neither playing any role in the day-to-day business of the company nor being in charge of the affairs of the company. But the court was not convinced. It said that "a perusal of the record in the present case indicates that the appellant has specifically averred in his complaint that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were actively participating in the day-today affairs of the accused no.1 – company. Further, the accused nos. 2 to 4 (including the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) are alleged to be from the same family and running the accused no.1 – company together. The complaint also specifies that all the accused, in active connivance, mischievously and intentionally issued the cheques in favor of the appellant and later issued instructions to the Bank to "Stop Payment". No evidence of unimpeachable quality has been brought on record by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to indicate that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court."

This order of the Supreme Court clearly establishes two things. First, if a cheque has been issued by a company and if it is proved that the director signing the cheque had been in charge of the affairs of the company at that time, both the company and the director are liable to be punished under the applicable sections of the NI Act. Second, High Courts cannot indiscriminately use the power granted to them under section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal complaints on the presumption that it might lead to an abuse of the process of the court. They must do so only if they find evidence to suggest that any continuation of the case would lead to an abuse of the process of law. There was no unimpeachable evidence before the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court in the instant case to suggest that the director who issued the cheque was not conducting the day-to-day business of the company. Hence, its use of sec. 482 of the CrPc was erroneous in this case. The apex court set aside the order of the high court and asked the trial court to decide the case on merit without being influenced by any observations in its present order.

However, it must be kept in mind that in a separate judgment recently, another bench of the apex court had reiterated that for instituting any cheque bounce case against a director of a company, it is necessary that the company must also be arraigned concurrently, without which the case against the director would not be maintainable. In the case Himanshu versus B Shivamurthy and another, the apex court said that "in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf.” This is the correct legal position. A company is a legal entity. Those who run the company do so on the instructions and concurrence of the Board of Directors of the company and for and behalf of the company. Under the NI Act, he or she can only be held liable as an officer of the company and not in his individual capacity. Hence, if the complainant does move against the company, he cannot move only against the director. He has to move simultaneously against both the company and the director.