ANIL HADA Vs. INDIAN ACRYLIC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) When a company, which committed the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') eludes from being prosecuted thereof, can the Director of that company be prosecuted for that offence This is the nub of the issue mooted before us by one of the Directors of the company. He approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana with the contention that prosecution in such a situation is not maintainable as against the directors. But a single Judge of the High Court spurned down the contention by the judgment which is now being challenged in this appeal.

(3.) M/s. Rama Fibres Ltd. is a public limited company of which the present appellant is one of the Directors. Five complaints were filed by another company (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chandigarh against M/s. Rama Fibres Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused-Company') and 11 other persons who are shown as directors of the accused-Company. The complaints contained the allegations that cheques were issued on behalf of the accused-Company for the debts due to the complainant and such cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account; and notices were issued to the accused-Company as well as to the directors demanding payment of the amounts covered by the cheques, but no amount was paid. Hence the complainant alleged that all the accused have committed the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of each of the cheques.