Case Law Details
Sheetal Amit Patil and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court)
Conclusion: As the law required that an enquiry be held under Section 202 of the Code if the accused stayed outside the Court’s jurisdiction, such enquiry had to be undertaken in clear terms and the Trial Court, after making such enquiry whether by taking evidence on affidavit or by restricting the enquiry to examination of documents or not, was required to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused.
Held: The question whether Section 202 of the Code was mandatory in respect of a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or not was now well settled. It was held that as the law required that an enquiry be held under Section 202 of the Code if the accused stayed outside the Court’s jurisdiction, such enquiry had to be undertaken in clear terms and the Trial Court, after making such enquiry whether by taking evidence on affidavit or by restricting the enquiry to examination of documents or not, was required to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused. In the present case, Trial Court did not do so. In view of the same, the order issuing process and the subsequent orders passed by the Trial Court in the present case ought to be set aside and the matter remanded back so that Trial Court could proceed afresh from the stage of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. However, since no mandatory enquiry was undertaken in clear terms under Section 202 of the Code even through the accused resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the order issuing process and the subsequent orders passed by Trial Court were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for proceeding afresh from the stage of enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. Trial Court was requested to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.
Whether all directors/partners of a Company/ Partnership are liable in case of dishonour of a cheque issued by a Company/partnership or only directors/partners who were incharge of affairs of the Company/Partnership are liable.
It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
