Case Law Details
Abhijit Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that order of acquittal set aside as recorded on account of misreading of evidence. Evidence on record sufficient to hold respondent liable for committing offence u/s. 138 of N.I. Act.
Facts- The appellant is an income tax consultant and he worked for the said company previously in relation to their income tax etc. Since respondents No.2 and 3 were closely acquainted with the appellant they approached him to lend a sum of Rs.30,50,001/- to purchase real estate in the name of the said company on consideration that the appellant would be made a Director of the said company having 1/3 share. The complainant agreed to such a proposal and during the period between 7th November, 2009 to 12th January, 2010, he lend a total sum of Rs.30,50,001/- by cheque and cash to purchase real estate property in the name of the said company.
On 30th September, 2012 they proposed the complainant for amicable settlement and handed over three cheques amounting to Rs.20,50,001/- in order to discharge their legally enforceable debt/liability in part. They also compromised to pay balance amount of Rs.10 lakhs on the date of withdrawal of the civil suit. The respondent No.2 issued two cheques both drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Asansol Branch for a sum of Rs.1300001 and Rs.500000/- respectively. However both the said two cheques were dishonoured on the ground “account closed”. The complainant issued statutory notice demanding repayment of cheque amount during the statutory period of time to the respondents. Both the respondents received the notice but they failed and neglected to make payment of the said amount which prompted the complainant to lodge the complaint u/s. 138 of the N.I Act against the respondents.
Magistrate on due consideration of the evidence on record to the respective cases of the parties and legal position with regard to vicarious liability of the Directors of a company and personal liability of the drawer of cheques came to the finding that the complainant failed to prove charge u/s. 138 of the N.I Act and passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
