MANAGING DIRECTOR CHIEF Vs. NAGESHWARA RAO TURAGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 4/A1 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 409, 406, 468/473,120- B I.P.C. The 1st respondent/ complainant is stated to be an advocate. He filed private complaint in the lower Court and it was taken cognizance by the lower Court for the said offences and summonses were issued to the accused. The complainant was holder of credit card issued by SBI Cards and Payment Services (P) Limited. It is alleged that the 1st respondent gave a cheque bearing No.383253 dated 30.06.2005 for Rs. 600/- towards the amount payable by him under the credit card account and that the said cheque was interpolated as Rs. 1,600/- both in letters as well as words and an excess amount of Rs. 1,000/- was debited from his account. Thereupon, there was correspondence between the 1st respondent and the company. The correspondence discloses that after the company came to know about illegal debiting of Rs. 1,000/- in the account of the complainant by way of interpolating cheque issued by him, the said debit entry was reversed to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- and the 1st respondent was made good the loss sustained by him due to the interpolation of cheque drawn by him. The complainant was persisting with the company to find out the person who was responsible for the said interpolation in the cheque given by him. The correspondence further reveals that the said correction or interpolation in the cheque was made by one worker of out sourcing agency. It is the complaint of the complainant that the company did not disclose name of the person who was responsible for the interpolation made in the cheque issued by him. In the light of the said correspondence, the complainant filed private complaint in the lower Court against Al to A4.

(2.) Al is Managing Director/CEO of SBI Cards and Payment Services (P) Limited (in short, the Company) at Gurgaon (Haryana). A2 is Head, Sales and Marketing of the Company at Gurgaon (Haryana). A3 is Manager, Customer Services of the Company at New Delhi. A4 is Manager of the Company at Hyderabad. It is alleged in the complaint that Al to A4 treated the offence in callous manner and that the act of materially altering the cheque cannot be made by last cadre person in the company without the support and guidance of the officials of the accused organization and that therefore, the accused have committed the offences complained by the complainant in the complaint. It is contended by the petitioner s counsel that without there being specific allegations against Al to A4 as the persons who are responsible for the offences and without there being specific allegation of the accused having participated in commission of the offence, the complaint should not have been entertained by the lower Court. On the other hand, the 1st respondent (party-in-person) placing reliance on M.V. Javali v. Mahajan Boreuell and Co., 1997 8 SCC 72 of the supreme Court and Mahmud Ali v. State of Bihar,1986 2 AIR(Pat) 133of the Patna High Court contended that Manager or officers of the company who were in charge of and was responsible to the company are liable for prosecution, in case the offences were committed in the company.

(3.) Vicarious liability is unknown to general criminal law, unless there is a specific provision in any enactment. Contrary thereto, be it in a special enactment or Indian Penal Code. No person who did not participate in commission of the offence proper can be mulcted with criminal liability. The supreme Court in M.V. JAVALI was considering special provision under Section 276(b) of the Income Tax Act and full bench of the Patna High Court in Mahmud Ali was considering a case relating to a prosecution under Section 47(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, which provisions enabled prosecution of a company and also the persons who were responsible to the company for conduct of its business of the company along with the company.