POOJA RAVINDER DEVIDASANI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA&ANR.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1468 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1468 
POOJA RAVINDER DEVIDASANI 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA&ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2604-2610 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
[SUDHANsu· JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
N:V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
' 
•• 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ,... s. 141 - Vicarious · 
C liability- Inference of- Held: Liability uls. 141 can be inferred 
on a person only when such person was at the helm of affairs 
of the Company actively looking after its day to day affairs, 
at the material time - There should be specific averment 
against such person showing as to how the person was 
D responsible for the conduct of business of the Company. 
.. 
. 
Code ofCiiminal Procedure, 1973 :- s. 482- Criminal 
proceeding - Initiated u/s. 138 rlw. s.' 141 of Negotiable . 
Instruments Act- Quashing of Held: Criminal law n·ot to be 
E set into motion as a matter of course without examining nature 
of a/legations and evidence in support thereof and without 
ascertaining whether the offence was prima facie committed 
· -
In the present case, continuation of the criminal 
proceedings against the appellant-accused Act is pure abuse 
F of process of law - The appellant cannot be held vicariously 
liable for the act of the Company as her role in the day tp day 
affairs of the company was not explained - Negotiable 
lnstrumentsAct, 1881-s.138rlws.141. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. Summoning of an accused in a criminal 
H 
.. 
case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into 
motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate 
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied 
his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable 
1468 
POOJARAVINDERDEVIDASANI v. STATE OF 
1469 
MAHARASHTRA&ANR. 
thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made A 
in the complaint and the evidence both oral and 
documentary in support thereof and would that be 
sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing 
charge holT!e to the accused. The Magistrate has to 
carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and 
B 
may even himself put questions to the complainant and 
his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness 
of the allegations or oth.erwise and then examine if any 
offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the 
accused. [Para 22][1483-F-H; 11-84-A-B] 
c 
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial 
Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 343.: 1998 (3) 
SCR 104- retied on. 
2. To fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of · 0 
the Negotiable Instruments· Act, on a person, at the 
material time that person shall have been at the helm of 
affairs of the Company, one who actively looks after the 
day-to-day activities of the Company and particularly. 
responsible for the conduct of its business. Simply E 
because a person is a Director of a Company, does not 
make him liable under the Act. Every person connected 
with the Company will not fall into the ambit of the 
provision. There must be specific averments against the 
Director showing as to how and in what manner the F 
Director was responsible for the conduct of the.business 
of the Company. [Paras 17 and 20][1481-D-F; 1483-A] 
National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet 
Singh Paintal &Anr. 2010 (3) SCC 330: 2010 (2) 
SCR 805; Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta & Anr. 
G 
(1971) 3 SCC 189: 1971 (3) SCR 748; State of 
Karnataka v. Pratap Chand & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 
.335 : 1981 (3) SCR 200; Sabitha Ramamurthy 
& Anr. v. R.B.S. Channbasavaradhya (2006) 10 
SCC 581 : 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 126- relied on. 
H 
.. 1470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS' 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
. 3. The vicarious liability u/s. 141 can be informed 
only if the requisite statements, which are required to be 
averred in the complaint petition, are made so as to make 
the accused therein vicariously liable for the· offence 
. committed by the company. By verbatim rep~oducing the 
B wording of the Section without a clear statement of fact 
supported by proper evidence, tso as to make the 
accused_ vicariously liable, is a ground for quashing 
proceedings initiated against.such person u/s. 141. 
c 
[Para .21)[1483"D·EJ 
4. The factum of appellant resigning from the 
Board of Directors is established. Two persons,· were 
·inducted as Director-Operations cif the Company on the 
same date, the appellant had ceased to be a Director .. 
Respondent No. 2 was well aware of the change of 
D. Directors. Respondent No, 2 on the cine hand ·raises a. 
. 
' 
. 
doubt about the genuinenes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.