LexMRS. APARNA A. SHAH versus M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013} 7 S.C.R 69 MRS. APARNA A. SHAH v. MIS. SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No: 813 of 2013) JULY 1, 2013 (P. SATHASIVAll AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]: NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. 1881: A B ss. 138 and 141 - Dishonour of cheque - Uabilily of joint c ac:counf holders - Complaint uls. 138 - Held: Under s. fla it is only the "drawer" of cheque who can be made liable for penal action - Strict intetptetalion is required to be given to penal statutes - In a case of issuance of cheque from joint accooot a joint account holder cannot be proseculed unless 0 cheque has been signed by each and evety joint account holder- Appellant has nd signed the cheque - s. 141. which deals with olfence tW. 138 committed by a company. is not atl1acteci-1t was never the case in the complaint that appellant was being ptoSeCUted as an association of individuals - The term "association of persons• has to be interpreted ejusdem E generis having regard to the purpose of the principle of vicarious liability incotpotated in s. 141 - Proceedings as regatds appellant. quashed -Interpretation of statutes - Ejusdem generis. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1913: s. 482 - QUashing of criminal proceedings - Stage of approaching the High Court - Explained. F The appellant and her husband had a joint account G The latter issued a cheque from the said account. The cheque was dishonoured for "'insufficient funds•. On the complaint by respondent no. 1-drawee. the lletn:apofitan Magistrate issued process against both of thela The High 69 H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A Court refused to quash the proceedings. In the instant appeal filed by the wife, it was contended for the appellant that in view of the provision of s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments -Act, 1881 and the interpretation of the expression "drawer", issuance of process by the B Magistrate could not be sustained. Allowing the. appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In order to constitute an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court, in c Jugesh Sehgal's case enumerated the ingredients of the section which are required to be fulfilled. The case on hand relates to criminal liability on account of dishonour of a cheque. It primarily falls on the drawer; if it is a Company, then on Drawer Company and is extended to 0 the officers of the company. The normal rule in the cases involving criminal liability is against vicarious liability. No one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. This normal rule is, however, subject to exception on account of specific provision being made in statutes E extending liability to others, e.g. s.141 of NI Act, which would have no application in the instant case. Strict interpretation is required to be given to penal statutes. [para 8,13 and 23) [78-B; 79-B; 80-D-F; 84-G) Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi 2009 (10) F SCR 857 = (2009) 14 sec 683; and Sham Sunder and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1989 (3) SCR 886 = (1989) 4 sec 630 - relied on. S.K. A/agh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2008 G (2) SCR 1088 = (2008) 5 SCC 662 - referred to. 1.2 It is not in dispute that the first respondent has not filed any complaint under any other provisions of the Penal Code and, therefore, 'intention of the parties' is not attracted. Inasmuch as the appellant had annexed the H relevant materials, namely, copy of notice, copy of reply, APARNA A. SHAH v. SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT. 71 LTD. & ANR. copy of the complaint and the order issuing process A which alone is relevant for consideration in respect of complaint uls 138 of the N.I. Act, it can not be said that the stand of the appellant has to be rejected for suppressing of material facts or relevant facts. [para 14] [81-D, G-H] 8 Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others, 2010 (5) SCR 927 = (2010) 4 SCC 728, Balwantrai Chimanlal Trivedi vs. M.N. Nagrashna & Ors., AIR C 1960 SC 1292, J.P. Builders & Anr. vs. A. Ramadas Rao & Anr. 201 o (15) SCR 538 = (2011) 1 sec 429 - held inapplicable. 1.3 Besides, it was never the case of the first resporident in the complaint filed before Magistrate that D the appellant wife was being prosecuted as an association of individuals. Since, this expression has not been defined, the same has to be interpreted ejusdem generis having regard to the purpose of the principle of vicari
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.