Gunmala Sales Private LTD Vs Anu Mehta 17102014 Ss140951COM145996 PDF
Gunmala Sales Private LTD Vs Anu Mehta 17102014 Ss140951COM145996 PDF
Gunmala Sales Private LTD Vs Anu Mehta 17102014 Ss140951COM145996 PDF
(2015)1SCC103
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 2228 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1724
of 2013), Criminal Appeal Nos. 2261-2265 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5500-5504 of 2013), Criminal Appeal Nos. 2250-2260 of 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5460-5470 of 2013), Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2229-2241 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5377-5389 of
2013) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 2242-2249 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5437-5444 of 2013)
Decided On: 17.10.2014
Appellants: Gunmala Sales Private Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Anu Mehta
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka,
Deepayan Mandal and Vaibhav Niti, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., T. Mahipal, Rishabh
Sancheti, Yatin Sachdeva and Padma Priya, Advs.
Case Note:
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
Section 138, 141 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 482 -- Bouncing
of Cheque -- Liability of director -- Maintainability of criminal proceeding --
Accused No. 1 is a company and the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the
Directors -- Directors were at the time of offence responsible for the conduct
and day to day business of accused No. 1 -- In discharge of legal debt, accused
No. 1 had issued a cheque signed by the accused No. 2 -- Complaint is
quashed by the High Court against all other accused except accused 2 who
has signed the cheques -- It is necessary to aver in the complaint filed under
Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act that at the relevant time
when the offence was committed, the Directors were in charge of and were
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. This is a basic
requirement. There is no deemed liability of such Directors -- Nothing was
produced to substantiate that they were not in charge of and not responsible
for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time -- Matter
is remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing -- Order passed by the High
Court, quashing the process against S.M is confirmed as she is stated to be an
old lady over 70 years of age.
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS CHALLENGING PROSECUTION UNDER NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT
1 20th Edition
2 16th Edition
3 17th Edition