DILIP HARIRAMANI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The issues raised in this appeal by the appellant, Dilip Hariramani, challenging his conviction under Sec. 138 (138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds .. means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.) read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') are covered by the decisions of this Court on the aspects of (i) vicarious criminal liability of a partner; and (ii) whether a partner can be convicted and held to be vicariously liable when the partnership firm is not an accused tried for the primary/substantive offence.

(3.) We are not required to refer to the facts extensively. Suffice it is to notice that the respondent before us - Bank of Baroda, had granted term loans and cash credit facility to a partnership firm - M/s. Global Packaging (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Firm') on 4/10/2012 for Rs.6,73,80,000.00. It is alleged that in part repayment of the loan, the Firm, through its authorised signatory, Simaiya Hariramani, had issued three cheques of Rs.25,00,000.00 each on 17/10/2015, 27/10/2015 and 31/10/2015. However, the cheques were dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds. On 4/11/2015, the Bank, through its Branch Manager, issued a demand notice to Simaiya Hariramani under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. On 7/12/2015, the respondent Bank, through its Branch Manager, filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, against Simaiya Hariramani and the appellant. The Firm was not made an accused. Simaiya Hariramani and the appellant, as per the cause title, were shown as partners of the Firm. Paragraph 8 of the complaint, which relates to the vicarious culpability, states: