B.L. BOOLANI, S/O. LATE LAKSHMICHAND BOOLANI, AT UNIT NO. 3, 3RD FLOOR, PRABHADEVI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 402, V. SAVARKAR MARG, MUMBAI - 400025 Vs. M/S. SHAH POLYMERS, M.S.R. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOKUL, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Trial Court has convicted the accused, in a case related to the dishonour of cheque/s, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 5,05,000/ -. Out of the fine amount, when realised, Rs. 25,00,000/ - was ordered to be paid to the complainant, under Section 357 Cr.P.C., as compensation. In case of default of payment of compensation amount, the accused were directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months. An appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed, this criminal revision petition has been filed. The allegations made in the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner and another - N. Bharath Shetty, i.e., the accused in the Trial Court, can be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) THE accused denied the charge. During trial, for the complainant, Ramegowda/PW -1 was examined, through whom, Exs.P1 to P8 was marked. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused No. 1 - N. Bharath Shetty, got himself examined as DW -1. Petitioner -accused No. 2, got himself examined as DW -2. Son of the petitioner, Vijay Boolani, was examined as DW -3. Sri Somanna, Bank Manager deposed as CW -1. Exs.D1 to D23 and Ex.C1 - Accounts Statement was marked. Learned Trial Judge found that, "there existed a legally enforceable debt as on the date the cheques in question were issued and the cheques so issued having been returned unpaid due to non -availability of funds in the bank account of the Company of the accused, held that the complainant has proved beyond all shadow of doubt that the accused have committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act". As a result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, noticed supra, was passed.

(3.) SRI V.B. Shivakumar, learned advocate for the petitioner, after taking me through the record of the case and the impugned Judgments, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 AIR SCW 2693, contended that the offence, if any, having been committed by the "Company", without the Company also being arraigned as an accused in the case, the prosecution of the Director/s of the Company is impermissible. He submitted that the Courts below, without examining the defence putforth, by keeping in view the correct position of law, have found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S.138 of the Act. He submitted that the impugned Judgments are perverse and illegal.