P.SARAVANA KUMAR Vs. S.P.VIJAYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records in C.C.No.2951/2019 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, quash all further proceedings as against him in the said case in C.C.No.2951/2019.

(2.) The petitioner is the second accused in the private complaint laid under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He prays to quash the complaint against him on the ground that the subject cheque is issued from the account maintained by M/s Jaandar Apparels, a Proprietorix concern owned by the first accused Mrs.Thilagavathy. He is the authorised signatory of the Proprietorix concern to sign cheques, but he is not the drawer of the cheque on the account maintained by him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that, Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holds responsible only the person, who draws the cheque on an account maintained by him. Sec. 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines, who is a Drawer. In case of a bank account in the name of the Proprietor concern, only the proprietor is liable and not the mandate holder or the authorised signatory be liable for the dishonour of the said cheque. Unlike 'company' defined in Sec. 141 of the Negotaiable Instruments Act, a 'Proprietor concern' is not owned by collection of persons but owned by individual. Therefore, the principle of vicarious liability will not apply. The said individual, who owns the Proprietor concern alone is liable to be prosecuted, since he/she alone maintains the account and not the authorised signatory.