N KRISHNAN Vs. S A NANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri.

(2.) THIS criminal appeal has arisen in this way : The appellant herein is an advocate. According to him, the first respondent is the managing partner of a firm known as "Sivasakthi Tea Industries". The second respondent is stated to be a working partner. According to the appellant, on April 13, 1991, the first respondent issued a self-cheque for Rs. 20, 000 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Coonoor Branch, which he had endorsed in favour of the appellant. Similarly on April 20, 1991, the first respondent issued another self-cheque drawn on the same bank and endorsed the same in favour of the appellant and received Rs. 25, 000. Exhibits Nos. P-1 and P-2 are the cheques. When the cheques were presented to the bank, they were returned with exhibits Nos. P-3 and P-4 endorsements as funds insufficient on September 16, 1991. The appellant gave exhibits Nos. P-5 and P-6 notices to the first respondent, which the first respondent has received under exhibits P-7 and P-8 acknowledgments. The notice was not served on the second respondent, but returned. Therefore, the appellant again issued the notice, to the second respondent but it was returned as refused as per exhibit P-11 endorsement. The respondents had not come forward to make payment within the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of receipt/refusal to receive the notice. Therefore, the appellant instituted proceedings in C.C. No. 334 of 1992 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) SO far as the third objection, which was sustained by the learned trial magistrate, is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in holding so. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as under : "S. 141. Offences by companies. - (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.