LexANEETA HADA versus M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 7 S.C.R. 1054 A ANEETA HADA }-· II. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD. (Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2008) B MAY 8, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) ,.. . J. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Ss. 7, 138, 139 and 141: c Dishonour of cheque - Liability of signatory of cheque and company - Held (Per Sinha, J.): Cheque was drawn by company and not by the appellant who was only the authorized signatory of the company - Moreover, she has not been maintaining an account with the banker - Thus, she does not D answer either of the description of 'such persons' in terms of s. 138 of the Act- The company is the principal offef"der in terms • t of provisions uls. 141 of the Act - For making the appellant, signatory of the cheque vicariously liable, the company should have been made an accused - Company, although a juristic E person, is a separate entity - Nobody, without any authority of law, can sentence it without hearing it - No statute can be construed in such a manner so as to refuse an opportunity of being heard to a person - Thus, prosecution of the company is sine qua non for prosecution of other persons - Since F appellant was not the drawer of the cheque, no offence uls. 138 of the Act could be made out against her - Interpretation of Statutes. Held (Per Sirpurkar, J.): Appellant had the authority to use the cheque book and sign on behalf of the company and G that too for discharging the debt - Her act is squarely covered uls. 138 of the Act - Even if it is presumed that the account was meant to be maintained by the company, the appellant had the authority to operate it- Cheque in question signed by /,. the appellant had bounced - Under the circumstances, it would H 105'1 ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1055 TOURS PVT. LTD. ~-1 have to be presumed that the signatory of the cheque shall A also be deef1Jed to be guilty of the offence u/s. 138 of the Act- Liability is of the company or of the appellant is yet to be decided - It cannot be said that unless the company joined as an accused, it is not possible to proceed against the ' signatory of the cheque - The principle underlying the maxim B -1 A 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' would apply in view of the language of s. 141 of the Act - In view of settled position of law, appellant would be completely liable since the cheque signed by her had bounced - Interpretation of Statutes. Order of the Court - In view of the difference of opinion, c the matters referred to a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Principles/Maxims: • Principle 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' - Applicability D .... of in the context of s. 141 of the Negotiable lnstn1ments Act, 1881. Appellant, an authorized signatory of a company, issued a cheque on behalf of the company for certain E amount in favour of respondent-company. The cheque was dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint against the appellant uls.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, the company was not arrayed as an accused, even the notice was served only on the appellant F and not upon the company. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her. Appellant filed a petition for quashing the proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Referring the matters to three Judge Bench, the Court G HELD, Per 5.8. Sinha, J.: 1.1 A company being a body --'. corporate is capable of suing and being sued in its own name. (Para - 4) [1067-G] 1.2 The authorised signatory of a company does not H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R. A become the drawer of the cheque only because he has been authorised to do so for the purpose of banking operations. Admittedly, the bank account was also in the name of the company. The account was, therefore, B maintained by the Company. (Para - 4) [1067-G-H] 1.3 The person referred to in s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must not only be the drawer of the cheque but should have been maintaining an account with the banker. (Para - 7) [1069-D] c 1.4 Appellant does not answer either of the descriptions of such 'the person' referred to in Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly, she was only an authorised signatory and the amount with the banker was to be maintained by the Company. Cheque was drawn by the 0 Company and not by the appellant. She did not do so on her own behalf. She issued the cheque in course of ordinary busin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.