BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. TARUN PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these ten Petitions, the Petitioner Bhupinder Singh who is one of the directors of Incentive Travels Pvt. Ltd. seeks quashing of the ten complaints on the grounds:

(2.) By an order dated 29.07.2010, the Petitioner and the other accused persons were ordered to be summoned to face prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (the Act).

(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that normal rule in criminal offences is against vicarious liability. The provisions of Section 141 of the Act are an exception to the general rule and to make a director liable for the act of the company the requirement of the section must be strictly satisfied. He argues that in order to make a director vicariously liable under Section 138 of the Act for dishonour of the cheque mere averments in the complaint that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company will not be enough. To make a director liable, it has to be stated as to how the director who is sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. The learned counsel places reliance on paras 8 and 10 of the judgment of Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., 2005 8 SCC 89, which are extracted hereunder: