S. P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY versus DR.SNEHALATHA ELANGOVAN

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 16-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
S. P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY
v.
DR.SNEHALATHA ELANGOVAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1586 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 141 –
Partnership firm – Cheque dishonour case – Vicarious liability of
the partners – Held: Burden is on Board of Directors or officers in
charge of the affairs of the company /partners of a firm to show
that they were not liable to be convicted – Existence of any special
circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is
peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at
the trial to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of
the affairs of the company or the firm – Criminal liability is attracted
only on those, who at the time of commission of the offence, were in
charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of
the firm – But vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against
the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint
about the status of the partners ‘qua’ the firm – This would make
them liable to face the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic
conviction – Hence, they are not adversely prejudiced if they are
eventually found to be not guilty, as a necessary consequence
thereof would be acquittal.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 and 141 – Partnership firm – Cheque
dishonour case against Director / partner of the firm – Interference
by High Court u/s.482 CrPC – Scope – Held: High Court should
not interfere u/s.482 CrPC at the instance of an accused unless it
comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence
to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been
concerned with the issuance of cheques – In a given case despite
the presence of basic averments, the High Court may conclude that
no case is made out against the particular Director/partner provided
the Director/partner is able to adduce some unimpeachable and
incontrovertible evidence beyond suspicion and doubt – If any
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 634
634
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition
u/s.482 CrPC on the ground that only a bald averment is made in
the complaint and that he/she is really not concerned with the
issuance of the cheque, he/she must in order to persuade the High
Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling
incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate
his/her contention – He/she must make out a case that making him/
her stand the trial would be an abuse of process of Court – Abuse
of Court.
Notice – Statutory Notice – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
– s.138 and 141 – Partnership firm – Cheque dishonour case against
a partner of the firm – No reply given by respondent-accused to
statutory notice served upon her by appellant-complainant – Effect
– Held: It is essential for the person to whom statutory notice is
issued u/s.138 to give an appropriate reply – The person concerned
is expected to clarify his or her stance – If the person concerned
has some unimpeachable and incontrovertible material to establish
that he or she has no role to play in the affairs of the company/firm,
then such material should be highlighted in the reply to the notice
as a foundation – Once the necessary averments are made in the
statutory notice issued by the complainant in regard to the vicarious
liability of the partners and upon receipt of such notice, if the partner
keeps quiet and does not say anything in reply to the same, then the
complainant has all the reasons to believe that what he has stated
in the notice has been accepted by the noticee.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.141 – Difference
between sub-section (1) and (2) of s.141 – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The primary responsibility of the complainant is
to make specific averments in the complaint so as to make the
accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability,
there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that
the accused partner of the firm was aware about each and every
transaction. On the other hand, the first proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 clearly
lays down that if the accused is able to prove to the satisfaction of
the Court that the offence was committed without his/her
S. P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY v. DR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.