Skip to main content

Who is liable for criminal offence committed by a company

IN THE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, Criminal Petition Nos. 5404 of 2017, 4509, 4510, 4511/2018 and 8672/2017, Decided On: 06.06.2019, Kiran Vittal Poojary vs Prismatic Engineering Private Limited, in the course of transaction, towards part payment of the dues, an invoice was issued along with a cheque dated 24.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 1,97,174/- to the respondent company. The cheque was dishonored with the endorsement that 'the payment was stopped by the Drawer'. The respondent thereupon sent a legal notice dated 28.06.2016 and thereafter the complaint was filed. The Magistrate by an order dated 18.11.2016, has taken cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of summons to the petitioner who was a nominee director of the offending company. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached the High Court.

The petitioner submitted that he is a employee of SIDBI Venture Capital Limited, which appointed the petitioner as a nominee Director of the Avni Energy Solutions Private Limited. As nominee Director, the petitioner has no role in day to day affairs of the company. The petitioner had also resigned from the Board of Directors on 09.09.2016 as Nominee Director and was appointed as Observer on the Board of Directors on the same day. He submitted that Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner was merely an investor nominee Director and was not considered as an officer who is in default for any purpose.

The High Court observed that a Liability under Section 141 of the Act is fastened vicariously on a person connected with the company. Therefore, the persons who are sought to be criminally made liable should be at the time of commission of offence, in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of the company. It is well settled that every person connected with affairs of the company would not fall within the ambit of Section 141 of the Act and only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the time of commission of offence will be liable for criminal action. The court referred to judgments of Supreme Court in K.K. AHUJA VS. V.K. VORA AND ANOTHER, HOSHIAR SINGH VS. STATE', 'SOORAJ DEVI VS. PYARE LAL','RAJINDER PRASAD VS. BASHIR AND ORS.', 'MONABEN KETANBHAI SHAH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF GUJRAT AND ORS.', "K.P. G. NAIR VS. JINDAL MENTHOL INDIA LTD.', 'U.J.S. CHOPRA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY', S.M.S. PHARMACEUTICALS LTD and observed that the position under Section 141 of the Act can be summarized thus:

(i) If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant time. This is because the prefix "Managing" to the word "Director" makes it clear that they were in charge of and are responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company.

(ii) In the case of a Director or an officer of the company who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company or make any specific allegation about consent, connivance or negligence. The very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-Section (2) of Section 141.

(iii) In the case of a Director, secretary or manager [as defined in Section 2(24) of the Companies Act] or a person referred to in clauses (e) and (f) of Section 5 of the Companies Act, an averment in the complaint that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company is necessary to bring the case under Section 141(1) of the Act. No further averment would be necessary in the complaint, though some particulars will be desirable. They can also be made liable under Section 141(2) by making necessary averments relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-Section.

(iv) Other officers of a company cannot be made liable under sub-Section (1) of Section 141. Other officers of a company can be made liable only under sub-Section (2) of Section 141, by averring in the complaint their position and duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue and dishonour of the cheque, disclosing consent, connivance or negligence.

(v) Mere reproduction of the wording of Section 141(1) of the complaint is not sufficient to make a person liable to face prosecution.

The Court decided that in the instant case, from the averments made in the complaint, the petitioner also does not fall within the meaning of the expression 'officers who is in default' which . Thus, even if the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety, then also no offence is made out against the petitioner.





Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more