NAVINBHAI HARGOVINDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.68288 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned 3rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat arising from a complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the cheque, which came to be dishonoured, was issued by the applicant herein in his capacity as one of the partners of the partnership firm running in the name of Shhlok Enterprise. Indisputably, the partnership firm has not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be held vicariously liable under Sec. 141 of the N.I. Act. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd ., (2012) 5 SCC 661.

(3.) Sec. 141 of the Act is concerned with the offence by the company. It makes the other persons vicariously liable for the commission of an offence on the part of the company. Vicariously liability gets attracted when the condition precedent under Sec. 141, namely, offence by the company stands satisfied. The issue whether a partnership firm is a legal entity within the meaning of sec. 141 of the N.I. Act is also no longer res integra after the pronouncement in the case of Oanali Ismailji Sadikot vs. State of Gujarat & Anr ., 2016 (3) GLR 1991. I may quote the relevant observations made by this Court as under;