(1.) The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable f Instrument Act against the respondent - General Manager of the Shimla Central I Co -operative Consumers Stores Limited, Super Bazar, and Shimla. For reasons best known to the petitioner, Shimla Central Co -operative Consumers Stores Limited, Super Bazar, Shimla was not made a party as respondent -accused in the complaint and the complaint was only made against the General Manager, who had issued the cheque in question. This cheque admittedly bounced for lack of funds leading to filing of the complaint.
(2.) After long drawn trial, the learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint and the accused has been acquitted on various grounds. The court has firstly held that the original cheque was never produced and that the photo copy could only be marked in evidence. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the stamp on the photo copy of the cheque is not legible. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that the complaint has himself admitted in cross -examination that he has not stated in his complaint that accused person was the in -charge of Super Bazar and used to conduct the entire business of the aforesaid store and was responsible for running the Super Bazar. No material was placed on record by the petitioner to show that the Super Bazar was running under the supervision of the respondent -accused.
(3.) The apex Court in Sabitha Ramamurthy & anr. Versus R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, JT 2006 (12) SC 20, clearly held that where the offence under Section 138 is committed by a Company and the accused is an officer of the Company, the inference regarding guilt of the accused can only be raised if in the complaint/petition the requisite statements and averments are made that the accused was in -charge of the affairs of the Company and was as such vicariously liable for the offence committed by the Company.