SATBIR SINGH Vs. RAM NATH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is to the orderdated 6.11.1998 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing impleadmentof the petitioners as accused in the criminal case filed by. the respondent. Both thepetitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these petitions are that on 23.3.1998, M/s.Okara Agro Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Company) issued acheque for Rs. 26,000.00 in favour of the respondent. The cheque was signed by theauthorised signatory, namely, Shri Narender Jeet Singh. When the cheque waspresented for encashment, the drawee bank dishonoured it on 27.3.1998 on accountof insufficiency of funds. Respondent issued a notice to the said company on1.4.1998 catling upon it to pay the amount. As the company failed to pay the amount,a complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 27.4.1998 against thecompany and its authorised signatory under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct and Sections 420/406/34 IPC. On 3.6.1998 the respondent filed an applicatiorbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate for impleadment of the petitioners and others asaccused in the case. By the impugned order dated 6.11.1998, the learned Magistratedirected that the petitioners should be impleaded as accused persons and be triecalong with the remaining accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners havecome up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) It needs to be highlighted that the complaint was not filed against the petitionersand there is not even a whisper in the complaint or shred of evidence nor anything toshow, apart from the application filed -by the respondent, that there is any actcommitted by the petitioners from which a reasonable inference can be drawn thatthey could also be vicariously liable for the offences alleged to have been committeeby the company. The Court can proceed against a person under Section 319 Cr.P.Conly if there is some evidence to show that the same person has committed anoffence of which the Court can take cognizance. In the absence of any such evidencesuch person cannot be summoned as co-accused. In Joginder Singh Vs. State ofPunjab AIR No. 1979 SC 339, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider thescope and object of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observedthat: