SHOBHAGMAL BANKATLAL MALOO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants in Criminal Application Nos.696 to 715 of 2014 are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Summary Criminal Case Nos.924 of 2013, 925 of 2013, 926 of 2013, 1205 of 2013, 1214 of 2013 to 1219 of 2013, 1094 of 2013, 1098 of 2013, 1097 of 2013, 1096 of 2013, 1095 of 2013, 1271 of 2013 to 1274 of 2013 and 1257 of 2013 respectively pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolhapur. Respondent No.2 - Priyadarshani Polysacks Limited is the complainant in all the complaints. The complaints have been filed by one of the directors of the complainant. As far as applicants are concerned, the role attributed to them is described in paragraph 2 of the complaint.

(2.) Mr. Jatin Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that the allegations made against the applicants are not sufficient to bring them in the array of the accused with the help of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that no specific role is assigned to any of the applicants in the complaints by the respondent No.2. My attention was invited to the judgment of this Court in Criminal Application No.437 of 2013 of Nagpur Bench decided on 28th October 2014. This Court, while dealing with the similar issue, had referred two cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first case referred by this Court in the said judgment was National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh reported at (2010) 3 SCC 330. The second judgment referred by this Court was GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. Kranti Sinha reported at (2013) 4 SCC 505.

(3.) In National Small Industries Corporation Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that to fasten the vicarious liability on the directors of the company and the company secretary, it was necessary for the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law so as to make the accused vicariously liable. It was further observed that for fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every director knows about the transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust (supra) has observed that in the order issuing summons, the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about the prima facie case as against those directors and the role played by them in the capacity of director or managing director or company secretary, as the case may be. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be found at para 19 of the judgment, which runs as under: