LOKESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. LALIT MOHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 7 -12008, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the Petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act' for short) and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six months, and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 22,000/ -, and has been directed to further suffer one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 23 -4 -2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment dated 7 -1 -2008.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 15 -4 -2000, the complainant Respondent No. 1, Lalit Mohan, filed a complaint only against Lok Vikas Finance Corporation Limited, through Manging Director, Lokesh Kumar Singh. The complainant did not array the Petitioner as an accused. It was alleged in the complaint that the cheque, issued for payment of the deposits, made in recurring deposit account of the company, has bounced. Despite the service of the statutory notice, the payment has not been made. On 16 -2 -2001, the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act against the Corporation. No cognizance was taken against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on behalf of the company, denied the allegation and prayed for trial. However, vide judgment dated 7 -1 -2008, the trial court held the Petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned above. The learned trial court did not convict the Corporation. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. Vide judgment dated 23 -4 -2011, the appellate court partly confirmed the judgment dated 7 -1 -2008. However, as the Petitioner failed to appear before the appellate court due to illness, still the appellate court directed that a case against the Petitioner be registered for offence under Section 229A IPC. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Manmohan Khetan, the learned Counsel for the complainant, has urged that according to Section 141 of the Act, the Managing Director of the company is responsible for the conduct and business of the company. Therefore, there is no need to separately array him as an accused in his individual capacity. Secondly, the defences were taken by the Petitioner, during the course of trial. Hence, he cannot contend that the opportunity to invoke defences was denied to him. Thirdly, he has supported the reasonings given by the learned appellate court, and has vociferously argued that both the judgments are legally sustainable. In order to buttress his contention, he has relied upon the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr., 2005 (2) W.L.C. (SC) Cri 49.