Holding

An authorized signatory of a company can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even if the company, as the principal offender, is not joined as an accused.

Summary

The appellant, an authorized signatory of M/s. Intel Travels, issued a cheque on behalf of the company which was later dishonoured. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but the company was not named as an accused. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition to quash the proceedings, leading to appeals before this Court. The Court examined whether an authorized signatory can be held liable under Section 138 when the company, the actual drawer, is not prosecuted, and whether Section 141 requires the company to be an accused for liability to attach to the signatory. Relying on the ratio in Anil Hada's case and subsequent authority, the Court held that prosecution of the company is not a sine qua non for proceeding against the signatory. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the liability of the appellant under Section 138.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to an authorized signatory when the company is the drawer.
Whether Section 141 mandates that the company must be made an accused before a signatory can be prosecuted.
The interpretation of the legal fiction created by Section 141 and the principle 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' in the context of cheque bounce offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 139, s. 141, s. 7

Subjects

Negotiable Instruments ActSection 138Section 141Cheque bounceCorporate criminal liabilityAuthorized signatoryVicarious liabilityLegal fictionLex non cogit ad impossibilia

Judgment

(2008] 7 S.C.R. 1054

}-·
A ANEETA HADA
II.
M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.
(Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2008)
MAY 8, 2008
B ,.. .
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
J.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Ss. 7, 138, 139 and
141:
c Dishonour of cheque - Liability of signatory of cheque
and company - Held (Per Sinha, J.): Cheque was drawn by
company and not by the appellant who was only the authorized
signatory of the company - Moreover, she has not been
maintaining an account with the banker - Thus, she does not
D answer either of the description of 'such persons' in terms of s.
138 of the Act- The company is the principal offef"der in terms t •
of provisions uls. 141 of the Act - For making the appellant,
signatory of the cheque vicariously liable, the company should
have been made an accused - Company, although a juristic
E person, is a separate entity - Nobody, without any authority of
law, can sentence it without hearing it - No statute can be
construed in such a manner so as to refuse an opportunity of
being heard to a person - Thus, prosecution of the company
is sine qua non for prosecution of other persons - Since
F appellant was not the drawer of the cheque, no offence uls.
138 of the Act could be made out against her - Interpretation
of Statutes.
Held (Per Sirpurkar, J.): Appellant had the authority to
use the cheque book and sign on behalf of the company and
G that too for discharging the debt - Her act is squarely covered
uls. 138 of the Act - Even if it is presumed that the account
was meant to be maintained by the company, the appellant
/,.

had the authority to operate it- Cheque in question signed by
the appellant had bounced - Under the circumstances, it would
H 105'1
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1055
TOURS PVT. LTD.
~-1

have to be presumed that the signatory of the cheque shall A
also be deef1Jed to be guilty of the offence u/s. 138 of the Act-
Liability is of the company or of the appellant is yet to be
decided - It cannot be said that unless the company joined
as an accused, it is not possible to proceed against the
'
-1 signatory of the cheque - The principle underlying the maxim B
A 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' would apply in view of the
language of s. 141 of the Act - In view of settled position of law,
appellant would be completely liable since the cheque signed
by her had bounced - Interpretation of Statutes.

Order of the Court - In view of the difference of opinion, c
the matters referred to a three Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court.

Principles/Maxims:

• .... Principle 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' - Applicability D
of in the context of s. 141 of the Negotiable lnstn1ments Act,
1881.

Appellant, an authorized signatory of a company,
issued a cheque on behalf of the company for certain
amount in favour of respondent-company. The cheque
E
was dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint against
the appellant uls.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. However, the company was not arrayed as an
accused, even the notice was served only on the appellant
and not upon the company. The Magistrate took F
cognizance of the offence against her. Appellant filed a
petition for quashing the proceedings, which was
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals.
Referring the matters to three Judge Bench, the Court G
HELD, Per 5.8. Sinha, J.: 1.1 A company being a body
- -'. corporate is capable of suing and being sued in its own
name. (Para - 4) [1067-G]
1.2 The authorised signatory of a company does not
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R.

A become the drawer of the cheque only because he has
been authorised to do so for the purpose of banking
operations. Admittedly, the bank account was also in the
name of the company. The account was, therefore,
maintained by the Company. (Para - 4) [1067-G-H]
B 1.3 The person referred to in s.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act must not only be the drawer of the cheque
but should have been maintaining an account with the
banker. (Para - 7) [1069-D]
c 1.4 Appellant does not answer either of the
descriptions of such 'the person' referred to in Section
138 of the Act. Admittedly, she was only an authorised
signatory and the amount with the banker was to be
maintained by the Company. Cheque was drawn by the
Company and not by the appellant. She did not do so on
0
her own behalf. She issued the cheque in course of
ordinary business transaction. (Para - 8) [1069-E-F]
2.1 The company is the principal offender. A director
of the company inter alia can be proceeded against if
E he is found to be responsible therefor as envisaged
under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(Para - 11) (1070-A]
2.2 If a person has to be proceeded with as being
vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company
F must be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair i
thing to do. Legal fiction is raised both against the
Company as well as the person responsible for the acts
of the Company. Unlike other statutes, this Act raises a
presumption not only in terms of Section 139 of the Act
G but also under Section 118(a) thereof. Those
presumptions in given cases may have to be rebutted.
The accused must be given an opportunity to rebut the i..

said presumption. An accused is entitled to be represented
in a case so as to enable it to establish that allegations
H
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1057
-1 TOURS PVT. LTD.

made against it are not correct. (Para - 13) [1071-8-D] A
2.3 Section 141 of the Act raises a legal fiction. Such
a legal fiction can be raised only when the conditions
therefor are fulfilled; one of it being that company is also
prosecuted. The Section uses the terms "as well as the
"' company". The company which is, thus, the principal 8
·-'
offender must be included in the category of the accused.
(Paras - 14 - 15) [1071-D-E]
Standard Chartered Bank and Others vs. Directorate of
Enforcement and Others (2005) 4 SCC 530; Asstt. c
Commissioner vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. (2003) 11 SCC 405;
Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR
(2007) SC 1481; S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta
Bhalla and Another (2005) 8 SCC 89; Sabitha Ramamurthy
.. t and Anr. vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya (2006) 9 SCALE
212; S. V Muzumdar and Ors. vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.
D
Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 173; Sarav Investment and
Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. L/yods Register
of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund and Anr. (2007)
12 SCALE 123; K. Srikanth Singh vs. North East Securities
E
Ltd. and Anr. (2007) 9 SCALE 371 ; Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills
Ltd. vs. Rajvir Industries Ltd. and Ors. (2008) 1 SCALE 331;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi sv. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and
Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 1; N. Rangachari vs. Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. (2007) 5 SCALE 821; Everest Advertising Pvt.
1 Ltd. vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (2007) 5 SCALE F
479; Pharmaceuticals (supra) and Saroj Kumar Poddar vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)and Anr. (2007) 2 SCALE 36; N.K. Wahi
vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors. (2007) 4 SCALE 188 and Balaji
Trading Company vs. Kejriwal Paper Ltd.· and Anr. (2005) 2
ALO (Cri) 162:2005 Cri L J 3805 - referred to. G

~..\. 2.4 The trial court, in a given case although the
company is not an accused, would have to arrive at a
finding that it is guilty. Company, although a juristic
person, is a separai.t:! entity. Directors may come and go.
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R.
>--
A The company remains. It has its own reputation and
standing in the market which is required to be maintained.
Nobody, without any authority of law, can sentence it or
find it guilty of commission of offence. Before recording
a finding that it is guilty of commission of a serious
8 offence, it may be heard. The Director who was in charge ..,
of the company at one point of time may have no interest >
in the company. He may not even defend the company. He
need not even continue to be its Director. He may have his
own score to settle in view of change in management of the
c company. In a situation of that nature, the company would
for all intent and purport would stand convicted, although, it
was not an accused and, thus, had no opportunity to defend
itself. (Para - 28) [1085-G-H; 1086-A-B]
State of Madras vs. C. V Parekh and another, (1970) 3
D SCC 491 and Sehoratan Agarwal and another vs. State of t
...
Madhya Pradesh {1984) 4 SCC 352 - referred to.
2.5 Any person accused of commission of an offence,
whether natural or juristic, has some rights. If it is to be
found guilty of commission of an offence on the basis
E whereof its Directors are held liable, the procedures laid
down in the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed.
In determining such an issue all relevant aspects of the
matter must be kept in mind. The ground realities cannot
be lost sight of. Accused persons are being convicted for
F commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Act
inter alia 01 drawing statutory presumptions. Various
provisions contained therein lean in favour of a drawer of
the cheque or the holder thereof and against the accused.
Sections 20, 118(c), 139 and 140 of the Act are some such
G provisions. The Act is a penal statute. Unlike offences
under the general law it provides for reverse burden. The
J.
onus of proof shifts to the accused if some foundational
facts are established. It is, therefore, in interpreting a
statute of this nature difficult to conceive that it would be
H

-
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1059
TOURS PVT. LTD.
• 1.
legally permissible to hold a company, the prime offender, A
liable for commission of an offence although it does not
get an opportunity to defend itself. It is against all
principles of fairness and justice. It is opposed to the Rule
of Law. No statute in view of our Constitutional Scheme
can be construed in such a manner so as to refuse an B
opportunity of being heard to a person. It would not only
offend a common-sense, it may be held to be
unconstitutional. Such a construction, therefore, should
be avoided. (Para - 29) [1086-C-G]
2.6 The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of C
Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. is to be understood in the
factual matrix obtaining therein, namely, the company
could not have been prosecuted due to a legal snag,
although was made an accused. However, the
_, ~ observations of the court that 'company need not be D
proceeded against', is obiter dicta and not its ratio-
decidendi. (Para - 31) [1088-B-D]
Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. (2000) 1 SCC 1 -
distinguished.
E
2.7 It is one thing to say that the complaint petition
proceeded against the accused persons on the premise
that the company had not committed the offence but the
accused did, but it is another thing to say that although
the company was the principal offender, it need not be F
made an accused at all. (Para - 32) [1088-D-E]
2.8 Prosecution of the company is a sine qua non
for prosecution of the other persons who fall within the
second and third categories of the candidates, viz.,
everyone who was in-charge and was responsible for the G
business of the company and any other person who was
a director or managing director or secretary or officer of
the company with whose connivance or due to whose
neglect the company had committed the offence. (Para ·-
32) [1088-E-F] H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
)- .
A 2.9 True interpretation of the provision u/s. 141 of
the Act would be that a company has to be made an
accused but applying the principle "lex non cogit ad
impossibilia", i.e., if for some legal snag, the company
cannot be proceeded against without obtaining sanction
B of a court of law or other authority, the trial as against the >
..
other accused may be proceeded against if the
ingredients of Sections 138 as also 141 are otherwise
fulfilled. In such an event, it would not be a case where
the company had net been made an accused but would
c be one where the company cannot be proceeded against
due to existence of a legal bar. A distinction must be borne
in mind between c.:lses where a company had not been
made an accused and the one where despite making it
an accused, it cannot be proceeded against because of a
legal bar. (Para - 34) [1089·E-G] .._
D t
2.10 In som"' of the decisions of this Court a liber'!I
interpretation of notice had been advocated to suggest
that a notice served upon a managing director of the
company or a director of the company shall satisfy t.he
E requirements of law. (Para - 36) [1091-B]
Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. vs. A. Chinnaswami JT 1999
(10) SC 236 and Rajneesh Aggarwal vs. Amit J. Bhalla JT
2001 (1) SC 325 - relied on.

F 3. In the case of Girish Saxena vs. Praveen Kumar Jain, ·t-
the Delhi High Court inter alia opined that it is settled law
that only drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the
cheque getting dishonoured. Since the petitioner was
G neither the drawer of the cheque nor it is alleged that he
was partner or proprietor of firm when cheque got
dishonoured or he was the person responsible for non '- '
payment of cheque amount, no offence under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act can be made out against
the petitioner. In the said decision, the High Court has laid
H Ir
:/'.

-
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1061
. -( TOURS PVT LTD.

down the correct law. Hence, the impugned judgment A
cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. (Paras
- 40, 41 & 42) [1093-0-H]
Pramod vs. CK. Velayudhan & Ors. (200,6) 1 JCC (NI)
.,. 62; B.S.K. Prasad vs. Mis. Laxmi Vessels & Anr. [2005 (1)
B
" JCC (NI) 86 and Girish Saxena vs. Praveen Kumar Jain &
Ors. (2007) 2 JCC (NI) 220 - approved.

Per V.5. Sirpurkar, J.: 1.1 It is not as if the appellant
suggests that she is not, in any way, connected with the
company on·' whose cheque book she has issued the c
cheque. She had the authority to u~e the cheque book
and sign on behalf of the company: Even if she .wrote a
cheque on the cheque-book of the company for paying
her own debts and the cheque is bounced, the offence
> .f under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will be D
completed atleast against her. That is -the clear import of
the language o·;· s. 138 of the Act and her act is squa;ely
covered under the said Section. The High Court had
correctly relied on Section 139 of the Act. The said filing
of the High Court is accepted. (Para - 4) [1094-0-F]
E
1.2 It is true that for a proper complaint under Section
138 of the Act, the cheque must have been drawn by a
person and secondly the account must be maintained by
"such person" and it should have been given for payment
l of amount of money to another person from out of that F
account for the discharge of any debt or other liability and
when such cheque is returned by the bank unpaid
~ because of the insufficient funds to honour the cheque.
Then such person would be liable under Section 138 of
the Act. In the present case, the account was being G
maintained by the company and' the appellant had the
·-~ authority to sign the cheque of that account. Therefore,
there will be a clear liability if the appellant used the cheque
which she had the authority to use and that too for
discharging the debt. It must be pointed out at this
H
·1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A juncture that the words in Section 138 of the Act are "any
debt" or "other liability". In this case since the company
was maintaining the account and the appellant had the
authority to operate the same, the conditions will be
satisfied even if it was given for the discharge of the !!ability
B of the appellant. (Para - 4) (1094-F-H; 1095-A-B]
1.3 Even if it is presumed that the account was meant
to be maintained by the company, since the appellant was
authorized signatory, it will have to be presumed that she
had the authority to operate the account. Again even if it
C is presumed that the cheque was issued by the company,
that will make no difference as the appellant has put her
signatures on the cheque which signature she was
authorized to put. This is apart from the fact that as yet no
evidence is led for proving as to whose debt was sought
D to be discharged by the cheques which were + ~
dishonoured. (Par:-. - 5) (1095-C-D]
2.1 The legal fiction created by the Legislature under
Section 138 of the Act is to be found via Section 141 where
E along with the company, every person who was incharge
of and was responsible to the company for the conduct
of the business is also ·made guilty. However, sub-section
(2) of Section 141 which starts with non obstante clause
creates an "additional criminal liability". Sub-section (2)
starts with the non obstante clause and fixes additional
F criminal liability. (Para - 6) [1095-E]
2.2 In using the cheque book of the company, which
the appellant was authorized to use and in signing the
same which cheque ultimately bounced, it would have to
G be presumed that the signatory of the cheque shall also
be deemed to be guilty of the offence. (Para - 6) (1096-B]
I. •
2.3 Even if the liability against the appellant is
vicarious on account of the offence having allegedly been
· committed by the company, it would have to be presumed
H
ANEETA HADA v. M/S GOD.FATHER TRAVELS & 1063
.--{ TOURS PVT LTD .

that the appellant had also committed the offence. A
However, though the company has not been joined as
an accused, that would be of no consequence. (Para -
7) [1096-C]
2.4 It is true that in the case of S.MS. Pharmaceuticals
.... B
"-. Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr, a vicarious liability has been
found against the person responsible for running the
company where the principal accused is the company.
However, it is nowhere laid down in the said case that
unless the company itself is made an accused, the person
responsible for running the same, in the present case, the c
signatory of the cheque, cannot be joined as an accused.
(Para - 9) [1096-F-G]
S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr
(2005) 8 sec 89 - referred to. D
)
.f-
3.1 In the present case it is yet to be decided as to
whether the liability was that of the company or the
appellant herself. It could be personal liability of the
appellant herself for discharging her debt for which she
might have misused the cheque-book of the company. E
Even under such circumstances the offence against her
could be completed is not known at this stage since no
evidence has been led in this regard. Therefore, the
inference that the liability was that of the company and
she was merely vicariously liable would, therefore, be a F
premature finding. On the other hand even if she has
misused the cheque-book to discharge her own liability,
taking advantage of her authorization to put the signatures
on the cheque-book of the company, she still would be liable
to be proceeded against and it would be a question between
G
herself and the company whether she has committed any
..1 offence vis-a-vis the company also. At this stage, however,
it is not possible to say anything without any evidence
having been led. (Para - 10) [1096-H; 1097-A-C)
3.2 Law laid down by this Court in various decisions_ H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 s c f(

A does not even impliedly suggest that unless the compar.y
is joined as an accused it is not possible to proceed against
the signatory of the cheque. (Para -11) [1097-D-E]
S V Muzumdar & Ors vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.
& Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 173; Sarav Investment and Financial
8 Consultants Pvt Ltd & Anr vs. Llyods Register of Shipping
Indian Office Staff Provident Fund & Anr (2007) 12 SCALE
123 and K. Srikanth Singh vs. North East Securities Ltd. &
Anr (2007) 9 SCALE 371 - relied on.

c 3.3 This Court in the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals
and N. Rangachari held that the prosecution could "le
launched not only against the company on behalf of
which the cheque issued has been dishonoured but it
could also be initiated against every person who, at that
time of committing the offence, was incharge and was
0
responsible for the affairs of the company. However, it
does not mean that both the accused must be joined
together for proper prosecution and that the signatory of
the cheque cannot individually be prosecuted in the
E absence of the company. (Para - 12) [1097-F-H]
4.1 The. basic complaint in the instant case wa:.;
against two accused persons including the appellant in
their individual capacity, though they might be purchasing
the tickets for the company. However, merely becaus·e of
F that fact one cannot reach <1t a conclusion that in the ...
absence of the company the two accused persons and
more particularly the appellant herein who was the
signatory to the cheque and whose cheque was bounced
cannot be prosecuted. (Para - 13) [1098-C-D]
G Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs State Govt of NCT of
Delhi & Ors. 2007 (5) SCALE 479; S MS. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. vs.· Neeta Bhalla & Anr (2005) 8 SCC 89 and NK. Wahi
vs: Shekhar Singh & Ors. (2007) 4 SCALE 188 - referred to.
4.2 The question as to whether the persons like
H
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1065
TOURS PVT. LTD.
-~
accused alone in the absence of the company having been A
made accused could be proceeded against or not had
directly fallen for consideration and it cannot be said that'
any observations in Anil Hada's case by any chance could
be viewed as obiter. This is a binding precedent. The ratio
-.. laid down in the said case was applicable to the factual B
"" matrix thereof which is identical here. The question has
been directly decided that the prosecution of the company
is not a sine qua non for the prosecution of the other
persons who fall within the second and third categories,
namely, those who were incharge and responsible for the c
business of the company. (Paras - 14 & 15) [1100-B-D]
Anil Hada vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. (2000) 1 SCC 1 and
Raghu Lakshminarayananan vs. Fine Tubes (2007) 5 SCALE
353 - relied on.
D
4.3 Since the question under consideration was
already covered by Anil Hada's cise, the appellant would
be liable to be prosecuted even :.ivhen the company had
not been joined as an accused. (Para - 19) [1100-H]
4.4 The principle "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" would E
not apply in the instant case, because of the language of
Section 141 of the Act and the appellant would be
completely liable since the cheques signed by her were
bounced. (Para - 17) [1100-F]
4.5 The decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court as F
reported in the cases of B. S. K. Prasad vs. Mis. Lax mi Vessels
and K. Seetharam Reddy vs. K. Radhika Rani support the
view that the person who has drawn the cheque, in case
the cheque is dishonoured, is liable under Section 138 of
the Act itself. (Para - 20) [1101-8-C] G

..-) B.S.K. Prasad vs. Mis. Laxmi Vessels (2005) 1 LJ (NOC)
7: 2004 Cri. LJ 4079 (AP) and K. Seetharam Reddy vs. K.
Radhika Rani (2002) 112 Company ·Cases 204 (AP) -
approved.
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
~~

A 5. Appellant's reliance in the case of Girish Saxena
vs. Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors. is also unnecessary since
in that case the accused was not a signatory to the
cheque. The decision in that case would not be applicable
to the present case. (Para - 22) [1101-F]
..--
B Girish Saxena vs. Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors. (2007) 2 ).

JCC (NI) 220 - disapproved.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDCTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 838 of 2008.
c From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.2007 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 928/2006.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2008.
D
Mineesh Malhotra, Roh it Nagpal and Pankaj Gupta for the
Appellant.
Rajesh Harnag and Su nil Dutta Mishra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is said to be an authorised signatory of Mis.
Intel Travels Ltd (Company). The said Company as also the
respondent company had business transactions. Appellant on
F behalf of the company issued a cheque dated 17 .1.2001 for a
sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of respondent which was
dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint petition against the
appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 ('the Act' for short).
G
The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed
as an accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the "-·
offence against her. Respondent had not even served any notice
upon the Company in terms of Section 138 of the Act It served
a notice only on the appellant presumably on the premise that
H
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1067
·,---{
TOURS PVT. LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

she was in charge and responsible to the company for its day A
to day affairs.
3. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment
refused to quash the proceedings, as prayed for by the appellant,

, .. A.
holding:

''This section does not say that the cheques should have
B

been drawn for the discharge of any debt or other liability
of the drawer towards the payee. Even the Section 139 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, by which a legal
presumption is created, the Parliament has only fixed the c
presumption that the cheque was issued 'for the dishcarge,
in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability.' This would
mean that the debt or other liability includes the due from
any other person. It is not necessary that the debt or liability
should be due from the drawer himself. It can be issued
D
for the discharges of any other man's debt liability. Legally
enforceable debt or liability would t.ave a reference to the
nature of the debt or liability and not the person against
whom the debt or liability can be enforced. One has to go
by the averments in the complaint. The complainant has
E
averred that it is the petitioner who had purchased the
tickets from the complainant and the cheque in question
was given by them in discharge of their liability. The
demand notice dated 8.5.2001 is also sent to the two
petitioners and not to the company. What the petitioners
state here may be their defence.'' F

4. A company being a body corporate is capable of suing
and being sued in its own name. Section 7 of the Act defines
"drawer" to mean the maker of a bill of exchange or a cheque.
The authorised signatory of a company does not become the G
drawer of the cheque only because he has been authorised to
do so for the purpose of banking operations. Admittedly, the
.--(
bank account was also in the name of the company.

\ The account was. therefore, maintained by the Company.
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R

A 5. Section 138 of the Act reads as under:

"Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc .. of funds in th '·
account.- Where any cheque drawn by a person o_n ar
account maintained by him with a banker for payment o
any amount of money to another person from out of that
8 account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt
or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the credit of
that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that 1t
exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account
c by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall
be deemed to have committed an offence and shall,
without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may be
extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to
D twice the amount of the cheque, or with both;
Provided that nothing contained in this ;:;ection shall apply
unless- ·

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a
E period of six months from the date on which it is
drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is
earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,
as the case may be, makes a demand for the
F payment of the said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing. to the drawer of the cheque, within
thirty days of the receipt of information by him from
the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
and
G
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or as the
case may be. to the holder in due course of the
cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said
notice."
H
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1069
TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

6. A complaint petition may be maintainable at the instance A
of the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn only when:-
(i) the cheque was drawn by 'a person'; and
(ii) the cheque was drawn on an account maintained by
'him' with a banker for payment of any amount of B
money to 'another person' from out of that account
for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the
credit of the drawer is insufficient to honour the cheque c
or that it exceeds the amount to be paid from that
account; and
(iii) in that event 'such a person' shall be deemed to
have committed an offence.
D
~ 7. The person r~ferred to in the said provisions, therefore,
must not only be the Jrawer of the cheque but should have beer;
maintaining an account with the banker.
8. Appellant does not answer either of the descriptions of
, such 'the person' referred to in Section 138 of the Act. E
Admittedly, she was only an authorised signatory and the amount
with the banker was to be maintained by the Company. Cheque
was drawn by the Company and not by the appellant. She did
not do so on her own behalf. She issued the cheque in course
of ordinary business transaction. F
9. The Parliament for meeting a contingency of this nature,
namely, where a company is an offender, has raised a .legal
fiction in terms whereof any person who at the time the offence
was committed. was incharge of and was responsible for the
conduct of business of the company, shall be deemed to be G
guilty of the offence.
10. For the said purpose. the corr\pany itself must be made
an accused. It has been so held by this Court in a number of
decisions to which I would refer to a little later.
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R

A 11. In this case, indisputably the company is the principal
offender. A director of the company inter alia can be proceeded
against .f he is found to be responsible therefor as envisaged
under Section 141 of the Act.
12. The said provision reads, thus:
B
"141. Offences by companies .-(1) If the person
committing an offence under Section 138 is a company,
every person who, at the time the offence was committed,
-
was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for
c the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
D render any person liable to punishment if he proves that
the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that
he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence: 2 "Provided further that where
a person is nominated as a Director of a company by
E virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central
Government or State Government or a financial corporation
owned or controlled by the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be
liable for prosecution under this chapter."
F (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1 ), r
where any offence under this Act has been committed by
a company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to. any neglect on the part of, any director,
G manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to '-·
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-
H
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1071
TOURS PVT. LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes A
a firm or other association of individuals;and

(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the
firm."

13. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being B
vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company must
be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair thing to do.
Legal fiction is raised both against the Company as well as the
person responsible for the acts of the Company. Unlike other
statutes, this Act raises a presumption not only in terns of Section c
139 of the Act but also under Section 11 B(a) thereof. Those
presumptions in given cases may have to be rebutted. The
accused must be given an opportunity to rebut the said
presumption. An accused is entitled to be represented in a case
so as to enable it to establish that allegations made against it
0
are not correct.
14. Section 141 of the Act raises a legal fiction. Such a
legal fiction can be raised only when the conditions therefor are
fulfilled; one of it being that company is also prosecuted.
15. The Section uses the terms "as well as the company". E
The company which is, thus, the principal offender must be
included in the category of the accused. Here, I am not dealing
with a case where an individual act of a person is purporting to
represent a company. In relation to business transactions, a
company as a corporate entity may have created its own F
reputation. It must maintain it. If a complaint is filed, in a given
case, only on the basis of the presumptions rai·sed in the statute,
it may be held to be guilty as a result whereof the reputation of
the company shall suffer. It may, thus, suffer grave civil
consequences. G
16. It is no longer res integra that a company can be
proceeded against in a criminal proceeding, even where
imposition of substantive sentence is provided for.

17. The question as to whether a company can be H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A proceeded against when a mandatory imprisonment is
prescribed in law came up for consideration before a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Standard Chartered Bank
and Others v. Directorate of Enforcement and Others [(2005)
4 SCC 530) wherein this Court upon considering a large number
B of decisions as also the principle "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" ._
opined:

"30. As the company cannot be sentenced to
imprisonment, the court has to resort to punishment of
imposition of fine which is also a prescribed punishment.
C As per the scheme of various enactments and also the
Indian Penal Code, mandatory custodial sentence is
prescribed for graver offences. If the appellants' plea is
accepted, no company or corporate bodies could be
prosecuted for the graver offences whereas they could be
D prosecuted for minor offences as the sentence prescribed
therein is custodial sent1=>nce or fine. We do not think that
the intention of the legislature is to give complete immunity
from prosecution to the corporate bodies for these grave
offences. The offences mentioned under Section 56(1) of
E the FERA Act, 1973, namely, those under Section 13;
clause ( a ) of sub-section (1) of Section 18; Section 18-
A; clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19; sub-section
(2) of Section 44, for which the minimum sentence of six
months' imprisonment is prescribed, are serious offences
F and 1f committed would have serious financial r
consequences affecting the economy ofthe country. All
those offences could be committed by company or
corporate bodies. We do not think that the legislative
intent is not to prosecute the companies for these serious
offences. if these offences invo1ve the amount or value
G
of more than Rs. one lakh. and that they could be
prosecuted only when the offences involve an amount or
value less than Rs. one lakh.
(Emphasis supplied)
H
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1073
~-{
TOURS PVT LTD [S.B. SINHA, J]

31. As the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, A
the court cannot impose that punishment, but when
imprisonment and fine is the prescribed punishment the
court can impose the punishment of fine which could be
enforced against the company. Such a discretion is to be
,. read into the section so far as the juristic person is B
~ concerned. Of course, the court cannot exercise the same
discretion as regards a natural person. Then the court
would not be passing the sentence in accordance with
law. As regards company, the court can always impose a
sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment can be c
ignored as it is impossible to be carried out in respect of
a company. This appears to be the intention of the
legislature and we find no difficulty in construing the statute
in such a way. We do not think that there is a blanket
..., immunity for any company from any prosecution for serious
D
}- offences merely because the prosecution would ultimately
er;cail a sentence of mandatory impriso;1ment. The
corporate bodies; such as a firm or company undertake
a series of activities that affect the life, liberty and property
of the citizens. Large-scale financial irregularities are
done by various corporations. The corporate vehicle now E
occupies such a large portion of the industrial,
commercial and sociological sectors that amenability of
the corporation to a criminal law is essential to have a
peaceful society with stable economy"
-, F
(Emphasis supplied)
An earlier decision of this Court in Asstt. Commissioner
v. Ve!liappa Textiles Ltd. [(2003) 11 sec 405] was overruled
by the Constitution Bench.
G
In the context of the provisions of the Income Tax Act,
recently a Division Bench of this ourt in Madhumilan Syntex
·-'· Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (AIR 2007 SC 1481], held:
"23. From the abc 11e provisions. it is clear that wherever
a Company is required to deduct tax at source and to pay H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] "1 S.C.R.
r--~

A it to the account of the Central Government. failure on the
part of the Company in deducting or in paying such amount
is an offence under the Act and has been made punishable.
It. therefore. cannot be said that the prosecution against
a Company or its Directors in default of deducting or paying
B tax is not envisaged by the Act. ,,..
>.
24. It is no doubt true that Company is not a natural person
but 'legal' or 'juristic' person. That, however, does not mean
that Company is not liable to prosecution under the Act.
'Corporate criminal liability' is not unknown to law. The law
c is well settled on the point and it is not necessary to discuss
it in detail."

18. Section 141 of the Act even does not provide for a
mandatory minimum imprisonment. A fine can be imposed upon
the offender for commission of an offence under Section 138 of
D
the Act. .... •\t!

19. Interpretation of Section 141 of the Act came up for
consideration before a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in
S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another
E [(2005) 8 sec 89] wherein it was opined that criminal liability
on account of dishonour of cheque primarily falls on the drawer
company and is extended to the officers of the company.
Analysing Section 141 of the Act, the Bench observed:

" ... Section 141 of the Act is an instance of specific provision
F which in case an offence under Section 138 is committed r
by a company, extends criminal liability for dishonour of a
cheque to officers of the company. Section 141 contains
conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability
can be extended to officers of a company. Since the
G provision creates criminal liability, the conditions have to
be strictly complied with. The conditions are intended to
ensure that a Qerson who is sought to be made vicariou§ll'. ......- ....

liable for an offence of which the QrinciQal accused is the
comQany, had a role to Qlay in relation to the incriminating
H act and further that such a Qerson should know what is
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1075
TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J]

attributed to him to make him liable. In other words, persons A
who had nothing to do with the matter need not be roped
in. A company being a juristic person, all its deeds and
functions are the result of acts of others. Therefore, officers
of a company who are responsible for acts done in the
name of the company are sought to be made personally B
liable for acts which result in criminal action being taken
against the company. It makes every person who, at the
time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and
was responsible to the company for the conduct of business
of the company, as well as the company, liable for the c
offence. The proviso to the sub-section contains an escape
route for persons who are able to prove that the offence
was committed without their knowledge or that they had
exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of the
offence."
D
[underlining is IT'ine]

20. In Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. v. R. B. S.
Channabasavaradhya [2006 (9) SCALE 212], this court held
that though a person was not personally liable for the offences E
committed by the company, however, he would only be liable
vicariously for the acts of company in terms of Section 141 of
the Act only if the requisite averments, are made in the complaint
petition.

21. In S V Muzumdar and Ors. v. Gujarat State Fertilizer F
Co. Ltd. and Anr (2005) 4 SCC 173, this Court explicitly laid
down the following categories of persons who are covered under
Section 141 of the act:

(1) The company who committed the offence.
G
(2) Everyone who was in charge of and was responsible
for the business of the company.

(3) Any other person who is a director or a manager or
a secretary or officer of the company with whose
connivance or due to whose neglect the company H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
,,........
A has committed the offence.
22. In Sarav Investment and Financial Consultants Pvt.
Ltd. and Anr v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff
Provident Fund and Anr 2007 (12) SCALE 123, this Court
opined that the director of the company is only vicariously liable ...
B for the acts of the company, and could be prosecuted only if the
)..

conditions precedent laid down in Section 141 of the Act are
satisfied
In K. Srikanth Sing/, v North East Securities Ltd. and Anr
c [2007 (9) SCALE 371 ], a Criminal complaint was filed for the
dishonour of cheque. Appellant therein had been proceeded
against for alleged cor.1mission of an offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Trial Court. Before
the High Court, quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of
....
D the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was sought. .\.
It was contend~d by the appellant that at the relevant poirt lee
i
of time since he was not the Director of the Company, hence no ,\r,1<

cognizance could be taken as the same does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 141. The High Court dismissed the
E petition holding the same as fact in respect thereof was required
to be established before the Trial Court.
l-
In an appeal to this court, this Court while referring inter-
alia to the decisions in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.( Supra)
and Sabith.a Ramamurthy (supra) held that for showing a ·r
F vicarious liability of a Director of a Company, it was incumbent
to plead that the accused was responsible to the Company for
the conduct of the business of the Company in the complaint.
The allegation in the complaint petition would not give rise to an
inference that the Appellant was responsible for day-to-day
G affairs of the Company. A negotiation for obtaining financial
assistance on behalf of the Company by its Directors itself was ~--
not an ingredient for the purpose of constituting an offence under
Section 138. Thus, vicarious liability on the Director of the
company part must be pleaded and proved and not inferred.
H [See also Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills ~td. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd.
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1077
TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J]

and Ors. 2008 (1) SCALE 331] A

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Ram Kishan Rohtagi
and Ors. [(1983) 1 SCC 1], the Respondent No. 1 was the
manager and respondents No. 2 to 5 were directors of X
company . Respondents were charged for offences under
... Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, B
.4,
1954 and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as
the Toffees manufactured by X company was found to be not
conforming to the standards prescribed for toffees. On appeal,
the High Court qyashed the proceedings against respondents.
c
It was held by this court that:

"So far as the Manager is concerned, we are satisfied
that from the very nature of his duties it can be safely
inferred that he would Ufldoubtedly be vicariously liable for
~
the offence; vicarious liability being an incident of an D
> offence under the Act. So far cis the Directors are
concerned, there is not even a whisper nor a shred of
evidence nor anything to show, apart from the presumption
drawn by the complainant, that there is any act committed
by the Directors from which a reasonable inference can E
be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable."

However, as regards the Manager of the Company, the
court held that since he could not f;:ill in the same category as
the Directors, and as he was directly incharge of the affairs of
the company, he should be held to be liable. F

23. In S MS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) it was held
that requisite averments must appear on the face of the complaint
petition itself stating:
"18. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion G
that necessary averments ought to be subjected to criminal
~--~ process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought
to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a
company, the principal accused being the company itself.
It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R

A vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the
complaint against the person sought to be made liable.
Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for
making a person liable under the said provision. That the
respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has
B to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the
Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments ""'
).
contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there
are averments which bring the case within Section 141.
he would issue the process. We have seen that merely
c being described as a director in a company is not sufficient
to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non-
director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The
averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose
that the person sought to be made liable would know what
is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable
D
him to meet the case at the trial."
24. This position was reiterated in N. Rangachari v. Bharat " -
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 2007 (5) SCALE 821, wherein this court
referring to the observations in S.M. Pharmaceuticals on
E specific averments in the complaint itself opined that
"The scope of Section 141 has been authoritatively
discussed in the decision in S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
(supra) binding on us and there is no scope for redefining
it in this case. Suffice it to say, that a prosecution could be
F launched not only against the company on behalf of which
)'
the cheque issued has been dishonoured. but it could
also be initiated against every person who at the time the
offence was committed. was in charge of and was
responsible for the conduct of the business of the
G company."
It was further held:
"Therefore. a person in the commercial world having a ). -
transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the
H directors of the company are incharge of !he affairs 0f '.tie
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1079
TOURS PVT LTD. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
'-"--1
company. If any restrictions on their powers are placed by A
the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the
directors to establish it at the trial. It is in that context that
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides
that when the offender is a company every person, who
... at the time when the offence was committed was incharge 8
~ of and was responsible to the company for the conduct
of the business of the company shall also be deemed
to be guilty of the offence along with the company It
appears to us that an allegation in the complaint that the
named accused are directors of the company itself would c
usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the
company and of their b8ing incharge of the company."

25. Again in Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2007 (5) SCALE 479, this court relying
on S.M. Pharmaceuticals (supra) and Saro} Kumar Poddar v. D
State ff\JCT of Oelhi)and Anr. 2007 (2) SCAL i:: 36 on the
question of the liability of the company officials held that :
"The averments must state that the person who is
vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the
Company both was incharge of and was responsible for E
the conduct of the business of the Company. Requirements
laid down therein must be read conjointly and not
disjunctively. When a legal fiction is raised, the ingredients
therefor must be satisfied."
F
To the same effect is the decision of this court in N.K. Wahi
v. Shekhar Singh and Ors. 2007 (4) SCALE 188.
In Balaji Trading Company v. Kejriwal Paper Ltd. and Anr
[2005 (2) ALO (Cri) 162 : 2005 Cri L J 3805], a similar question
arose for the consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High G
Court. In the said case, on the dishonour of the cheques issued
by the accused-company, a proceedings was initiated against
·- 4.
the company in the trial court. During the pendency of the said
ease, the accused-company filed a Criminal Misc. Petition under
Sections 239 and 245, Cr. P.C. for discharge and acquittal for H
1080 -SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R.

r
A the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act.
In the said application the Director of the company pleaded that
as the complainant did not mention anywhere in the complaint
that he was personally responsible for the day-to-day business
of the accused firms, he is not liable to be prosecuted. The
B learned Magistrate after hearing both parties dismissed the
application. The accused-company being aggrieved by the )..
..
order, preferred an revision before the Sessions court.
respondent-company contended before the Sessions Court that
the learned Magistrate erred in holding that a complaint can be
c lodged against the company through its Director without there
being any specific allegation that the said Director was incharge
of and wat responsible to the company in the conduct of the
business at the relevant point of time and that the offence was
committed with his consent or connivance and the non-pleading
of the Directors in their personal capacity is contrary to Section
D
141 of the Act, as such, the Director cannot be made to undergo

• the trial in the absence of any allegation or avermant in the
complaint that he was incharge of the affairs of the company
The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order on the
E ground that Section 141 had not been complied with as the said
director was not impleaded as an accused.
Before the High Court it was contended by the revisioner
petitioner that since the cheques issued by the company were
dishonoured, the prosecution against the company is perfectly
F maintainab'9 under Section 141 of the Act and the non- y
prosecution of the person in charge of the affairs of the company
or other Directors in their individual capacity is no bar to maintain
the prosecution against the company.

G
Thus, the point for consideration was Whether the
respondent-company was liable to be prosecuted under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by virtue of Section 141
of the Act in the absence of prosecution of the person incharge ....
of the affairs or other Directors of the company?
H The High Court after, going through Section 141 opined
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1081
--1, TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B ..SINHA, J.)

"The above provision makes it clear that the company A
as well as the person in-charge of the affairs of the
company is liable to be prosecuted. The liability
envisaged in Section 141 (1) on the person so
.. incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the
business of the company is directly responsible for B
.....
the offence. He can escape from his liability only if
he proves that the offence was committed without
his knowledge or that he has exercised his powers
with due diligence to prevent commission of such
offence. Where the offence is committed by a c
company, the company as well as the person incharge
of the business of the company are liable to be
prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the
Act. Though the company is an artificial person
handicapped of committing any crime personally, if
D
certain crimes are committed by its officials, the
company is liable for prosecution. But, when the
company is convicted, the liability can be only in
terms of fine as the company is responsible for the
acts of commissions and omissions of the persons
working for it." E

Referring to a large number of judgments of this court on
Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act as also on Section
141, setting aside the order of the Sessions Court, it was held:
"Sectioa 141 is specifically incorporated to prosecute the F
companies for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
The f?Jandate of the section clearly indicates that the
company is liable for prosecution when ·a cheque is
issued on its behalf and bounced on presentation of
such cheque. The intendment of the section is not to G
.. -4 give scope for individuals to escape by issuing cheques
in the names of the companies. Therefore, when cheques
are issued in the name of the company, the company is
invariably liable for prosecution for the offence under
Section 138 of the Ac~ Regarding the prosecution of the H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C R.
~-

A Directors of the company, the legal position makes it clear
that the person who is in charge of and was responsible
to the company in conduct of its business at the material
time is also liable to be prosecuted. But, the non-
prosecution of any of the Directors is no bar to prosecute
the company. The revision petitioner is pleading that he is ).
.
B
prejudiced on account of mentioning of his name as the
person representing the company. The prosecution never
intended to prosecute Sri Rahul Kejrlwal in his Individual
capacity. The Courts below also made it clear that Sri
c Rahul Kejrlwal is not personally liable for prosecution on
account of the absence of specific allegations that he is
in charge of the affairs of the company or managing its
affairs. The judgments placed on behalf of the revision
petitioner are only regarding the aspect whether a Director
or Directors arc liable to be prosecuted when there are no
0 "'
specific allegations that he or they were in charge of and
were responsible to the company in cunduct of its business.
In the light of the above circumstances. I find sufficient
force in the grounds of revision. The company is liable for
prosecution despite non-prosecution of the Director or
E Directors responsible for the management of the affairs
of the company or in charge of its affairs."
[Emphasis Supplied]
26. While saying so, I am not unmindful of views differently
F taken by some Benches of this Court. I would notice some of
them to place on record how different Benches took different
views.
27. I may, however, notice first a three Judge Bench
G decision of this Court in State of Madras v. C. V Parekh and
another, [(1970) 3 sec 491].
... ..
There the company was not made an accused. The
Directors of the company were acquitted. A contention was
raised that the accused being liab!e to the company should have
been convicted. This Court held:-
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1083
TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J]

"3. Learned Counsel for the appellant. however. sought f.
conviction of the two respondents on the basis of Section
10 of the Essential Commodities Act under which, if the
person contravening an order made under Section 3 (which
covers an order under the Iron and Steel Control Order,
1956), i<a company, every person who, at the time the B
contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business
of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed
to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly. It was urged c
that the two respondents were in charge of, and were
responsible to, the Company for the conduct of the
business of the Company a.nd, consequently, they must
be held responsible for the sale and for thus contravening
the provisions of clause (5) of the Iron and Steel Control
f 0
Order. This argument cannot be accepted, because it
ignores the first condition for the applicability of Section
10 to the effect that the person contravening the order
must be a company itself In the present case, there is
no finding either by the Magistrate or by the High Court
that the sale in contravention of clause (5) of the Iron and E
Steel Control Order was made by the Company In fact,
the Company was not charged with the offence at all.
The liability of the persons in charge of the Company
only arises when the contravention is by the Company
itself Since, in this case, there is no evidence and no F
finding that the Company contravened clause (5) .of the
Iron and Steel Control Order, the two respondents could
not be held responsible. The actual contravention was
by Kamdar and Vallabhdas Thacker and any
contravention by them would not fasten responsibility on G
the respondents The acquittal of the respondents is,
.. -+
therefore, fully justified. The appeal fails and is
dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied) H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 SC R
.,.._,.-..:_

A The clear findings contained in a binding precedent were,
however, sought to be explained by a two Judge Bench of this
Court in Sehoratan Agarwal and another v. State of Madhya
Pradesh. [ ( 1984) 4 SCC 352 ] stating -
"The Section appears to our mind to be plainenough. If the
B contravention of the order made under Section 3 is by a
Company, the persons who may be held guilty and
punished are (1) the Company itself (2) every person who,
at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge
of, and was responsible to, the Company for the conduct
c of the business of the Company whom for short we shall
describe as the person-in-charge of the Company, and
(3) any director, manag,er, secretary or other officer of the
Company with whose consent or connivance or because
of neglect attributable to whom the offence has been
D committed, whom for short we shall describe as an officer
of the Company. Any one or more or all of them may be
prosecuted and punished. The Company alone may be
prosecuted. The person-in-charge only may be
prosecuted. The conniving officer may individually be
E prosecuted. One, some or all may be prosecuted There
is no statutory compulsion that the person-in-charge or an
officer of the Company may not be prosecuted unless he
be ranged alongside the Company itself. Section 10
indicates the persons who may be prosecutedwhere the
contravention is made by the Company. It does not lay
F down any condition that the person-in-charge or an officer
of the Company may not be separately prosecuted if the
Company its.elf is not prosecuted. Each or any of them
may be separately prosecuted or alongwith the Company.
Section 10 lists the person who may be held guilty and
G punished when it is a Company that contravenes an order
made Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Naturally before the person-in-charge or an officer of the
.....
Company is held guilty in that capacity it must be
established that there has been a contravention of the
H Order by the Company. That should be axiomatic and that
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1085
>·-i TOURS PVT LTD [S.B. SINHA, JJ

is all that the Court laid down in State of Madias v. C.V. A
Parekh (supra) as a careful reading of that case will'show
and not that the person-in-charge or an officer of the
Company must be arraigned simultaneously along with
the Company if he is to be found guilty and punished. The
... following observations made by the Court clearly bring out B
J..
the view of the Court :

It was urged that the two respondents were in charge of,
and were responsible to, the company for the conduct of
the business of the Company and, consequently, they must
be held responsible for the sale and for thus contravening c
the provisions of Clause 5 of the Iron and Steel (Control)
Order. This argument cannot be accepted, because it
ignores the first condition for the applicability of Section
10 to the effect that the person contravening the order
must be a company by the Magistrate OR by the High D
Court that the sale in convention 0f Clause 5 of the Iron &
Steel (Control) Order was made by the Company. In fact,
the Company was not charged with the offence at all. The
liability of the persons in charge of the Company only
arises when the contravention is by the Company itself. E
Since, in this case, there is no evidence and no finding
that the Company contravened Clause 5 of the Iron &
Steel (Control), Order the two respondents could not be
held responsible The actual contravention was by Kamdar
'( and Villabhadas Thacker and any contravention by them F
would not fasten responsibility on the respondents."

28. With the greatest of respect to the learned judges, it
is difficult to agree therewith. The findings, if taken to its logical
corollary lead us to an anomalous position. The trial court, in a
given case although the company is not an accused, would have G
to arrive at a finding that it is guilty. Company, although a juristic
... -1 person. is a separate entity. Directors may come and go. The
company remains. It has its own reputation and standing in the
market which is required to be maintained. Nobody, without any
authority of law. can sentence it or find it guilty of commission of H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C R.
)r-<O.

A offence. Before recording a finding that it is guilty of commission
of a serious offence, it may be heard. The Director who was in
charge of the company at one point of time may have no interest
in the company. He may not even defend the company. He need
not even continue to be its Director. He may have his own score ,,..
B to settle in view of change in management of the company. In a ).

situation of that nature, the company would for all intent and
purport would stand convicted, although, it was not an accused
and, thus, had no opportunity to defend itself.

29. Any person accused of commission of an offence,
c whether natural or juristic, has some rights. If it is to be found
guilty of commission of an offence on the basis whereof its
Directors are held liable, the procedures laid down in the Code
of Criminal Procedure must be followed. In determining such
an issue all relevant aspects of the matter must be kept in mind.
D The ground realities cannot be lost sight of Accused persons
::ue being convicted for commission of an offence under Section
138 of the Act inter alia on drawing statutory presumptions.
Various provisions contained therein lean in favour of a drawer
of the cheque or the holder thereof and against the accused.
E Sections 20. 118(c), 139 and 140 of the Act are some such
provisions. °The Act is a penal statute. Unlike offences under the
general law it provides for reverse burden. The onus of proof
shifts to the accused if some foundational facts are established.

It is, therefore, in interpreting a statute of this nature difficult '(
F to conceive that it would be legally permissible to hold a
company, the prime offender, liable for commission of an offence
although it does not get an opportunity to defend itself. It is
against all principles of fairness and justice. It is opposed to the
Rule of Law. No statute in view of our Constitutional Scheme
G can be construed in such a manner so as to refuse an opportunity
of being heard to a person. It would not only offend a common- f- ...
sense. it may be held to be unconstitutional. Such a construction,
therefore. in my opinion should be avoided In ar.y event in a
case cf this nature. the construction which may be available in
H invoking Essential Commodities fl.ct. Pr9vention of Food
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1087
.> 1 TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J]

Adulteration Act, which affects the Society at large may not have A
any application when only a private individual is involved.

30. Our attention has also been drawn to a Two-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Anil Hada v Indian Acrlic Ltd.
• [(2000) 1 SCC 1] and R. Rajgopal v. S.S. Venkat [AIR 2001
.l. B
SC 2432].
In Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. [(2000) 1 SCC 1], this
court while construing the meaning of the term "as well as" held
that it would mean the persons mentioned in the first category
within the dragnet of the offence on a par with the offending c
company.

31. In Anil Hada (supra}, the company was under
liquidation. A question arose as to whether permission of the
company court was necessary to continue prosecution against
)-
the company. The court did not go into the said question. In that D
r3se. the Magistrate accepted the contenti'.ln raised on behalf
of the accused - company that the winding up had been ordered
by the court and hence no prosecution proceeding could be
continued against the accused - company. The said proposition
of law in a situation of this nature must be understood in the E
factual matrix involved in the matter. In the peculiar factual matrix
involved therein, it was opined:
"12. Thus when the drawer of the cheque who falls within
) the ambit of Section 138 of the Act is a human being or
a body corporate or even firm, prosecution proceedings F
can be initiated against such drawer. In this context the
phrase "as well as" used in sub-section (1) of Section 141
of the Act has some importance. The said phrase would
embroil the persons mentioned in the first category within
the tentacles of the offence on a par with the offending G
~ -1 company. Similarly the words "shall also" in sub-section
(2) are capable of bringing the third category persons
additionally within the dragnet of the offence on an equal
par. The effect of reading Section 141 is that when the
company is the drawer of the cheque such company is the H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R.
)-- ~

A principal offender under Section 138 of the Act and the
remaining persons are made offenders by virtue of the
legal fiction created by the legislature as per the section.
Hence the actual offence should have been committed by
the company, and then alone the other two categories of -...
B persons can also become liable for the offence." ,.
The ratio laid down in the said case is to be understood in
the factual matrix obtaining therein, namely, the company could
not have been prosecuted due to a legal snag, although was
made an accused.
c
However, with utmost respect, the observations 0f the court
that 'company need not be proceeded against', in my opinion
is obiter dicta and not its ratio-decidendi. We are otherwise
also bound by the Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
S M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) and CV Parekh (supra)
D
32. It is one thing to say that the co1"'1plaint petition
proceeded against the accused persons on the premise that
the company had not committed the offence but the accused
did, but it is another thing to say that although the company was
E the principal offender. it need not be made an accused at all. I
have no doubt whatsoever in our mind that prosecution of the
company is a sine qua non for prosecution of the other persons
who fall within the second and third categories of the candidates,
viz., everyone who was in-charge and was responsible for the
"(
F business of the company and any other person who was a
director or managing director or secretary or officer of the
company with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the
company had committed the offence.

33. In Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes 2007(5)
G SCALE 353, the issue before this court was whether having
regard to the explanation appended to the definition of company ~ "
in section 141 of the Act would include a proprietary concern.
Although the answer was rendered in the negative. the court
however made a very pertinent observation as regards the
H liability of the directors of the company. It opined
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1089
TOURS PVT. LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
# ~
"It is of some significance to note that in view of the said A
description of "Director", other than a person who comes
within the purview thereof, nobody else can be prosecuted
by way of his vicarious liability in such a capacity. If the
-< offence has not been committed by a Company, the
question of there being a Director or his being vicariously B
.... liable, therefore, would not arise. Appellant herein
A
categorically contended that accused No. 1 was a
proprietary concern of the accused No. 2 and he was
merely an employee thereof. If accused No. 1 was not a
Company within the meaning of Section 141 of the c
Negotiable Instruments Act, the question of an employee
being preceded against in terms thereof would not arise."
Indisputably, all the decisions of this Court in no uncertain
terms says - company at the first instance should be proved to
be offender and, thus, only question of proof that the Director is D
also liable being in charge of its affairs.
34. True interpretation, in my opinion, of the said provision
would be that a company has to be made an accused but
applying the principle "lex non cogit ad impossibilia", i.e., if for
some legal snag, the company cannot be proceeded against
E
withoui obtaining sanction of a court of law or other authority,
the trial as against the other accused may be proceeded against
if the ingredients of Sections 138 as also 141 are otherwise
fulfilled. In such an event, it would not be a case where the
~
y
company had not been made an accused but would be one F
where the company cannot be proceeded against due to
existence of a legal bar. A distinction must be borne in mind
between cases where a company had not been made an
accused and the one where despite making it an accused, it
cannot be proceeded against because of a legal bar. G

35. R. Rajgopal (supra} does not lay down any law.
.> -1
There are other statutes whose provisions is pari materia
with Section 141 of the Act, e.g., Section 35H Wealth Tax Act,
Section 14A Employees Provident Fund and MisceJ!,aneous H
\-

1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R

)-- ·~
A Provisions Act, Section 34 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Section
10 Essential Commodities Act, Section 6 Indian Merchandise
Act, Section 38 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act and Section 17 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

In Ra1asthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Bangalore and
B Ors. v. State of Karnataka [1981 (1) SCC 645] on the
>
...
interpretation of the words "punished accordingly" in Section
34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, this Court observed:

"It seems clear to us that the words "punished accordingly"
c in the context mean that a person deemed to be guilty of
an offence committed by a company shall receive the
punishment that is prescribed by the Act for that offence."

To the same effect is the decision of this court in State of
Punjab v. Kasturi Lal and Others [2004(12) SCC 195].
D
In R. Banerjee and others v. H.D. Dubey and others
~
[1992(2) sec 552] the question which arose for dccermination
was whether it was permissible to launch prosecution under Sub-
section (1) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 against the Directors and Managers of public limited
E
companies, for the commission of the alleged offence
punishable under the aforesaid provisions notwithstanding the
nomination made by the said companies as required by Sub-
section (2) of Section 17 of the Act This court after reading the
said provision held as under: ,
F
"It is clear from the plain reading of Section 17 that where ( •
an offence under the Act is alleged to have been committed
by a company, where the company has nominated any
person to be in charge of, and responsible to. the company
G for the conduct of its business that person will be liable to
be proceeded against and punished for the commission
of the offence. Where. however. no person has been so
nominated. every person who at the time of the !- ""'
commission of the offence was in charge of. and
responsible to. the company for the conduct of its business
H
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1091
TOURS PVT LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J]
.#-- -1
shall be proceeded against and punished for the said A
cnme.
36. I may notice that in some of the decisions of this Court
a liberal interpretation of notice had been advocated to suggest
that a notice served upon a managing director of the company
or a director of the company shall satisfy the requirements of B
A law [See Bi/akchand Gyanchand Co. v. A Chinnaswami JT
1999 (10) SC 236 and Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J Bhalla JT
2001 (1) SC 325].

37. The said decisions proceeded on the premise that c
what is necessary is the knowledge of the accused that the
cheque has been dishonoured so that the amount may be paid
within a period of fifteen days from the date of such knowledge.
38. A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in
Pramod v. C.K. Ve/ayudhan & Ors. [2006 (1) JCC (NI) 62] inter D
)- alia relying on a decision of this Court in Monaben Ketanbhai
Shah v State of Gujarat [(2004) 7 SCC 15: 2004 Cri LJ 4249]
opined:
"... In other words, commission of offence under Section
E
138 of the Act by a juristic person is an inevitable legal
pre-requisite or the condition precedent to proceed against
a person referred to under Section 141 of the Act and to
hold him guilty of the said offence."
It was further opined: F
"19. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon
the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B S.K
='4 Prasad v. Mis. Laxmi Vessels, 2005 (1) LJ (NOC) 7 :
-_,(

(2004 Cri LJ 4079) (AP) in which it is held that "as per
J

.
Section 138 of the Act the drawer of a dishonoured cheque G
only is liable for punishment". He also cited K. Seetharam
Reddy v. K. Radhika Rani. (2002) 112 Comp Cas 204
--{
(AP) in support of his arguments. It is held in the said
__,
decision that "Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
... Act. 1881. leaves no doubt that the person who has drawn H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

>-~
A the cheque on his account is alone liable in the event the
cheque drawn by him is dishonoured". In the light of the
above dictum also. I find that neither first accused -society
nor petitioner, as secretary of the society can be proceeded
against for offence under Section 138 of the Act.
8 20. But, despite all these, trial Court issued summons to ,..,
.>
petitioner. The mere description on the cause-title of the
complaint appears to be the sole persuading factor which
propelled learned Magistrate to summon petitioner. There
was no other groi..;nd to proceed against the petitioner.
c Needless to say, a criminal Court will not get any jurisdiction
to proceed against a person at the mere sight of the details
on the docket-sh,~et or the cause title. No Court shall act
upon the sole tag, label or the badge veiled on the cause-
title. No Court shall be carried away by the prints and dots
D on the veil of cause-title. The Court is bound to unveil the
complaint, feel the texure of its contents and test, the -\
criminality. Criminality lies not on how a person is
christened at the cause-title, but how he acts, as per the
contents of the complaint."
E 39. In B. S.K. Prasad v. Mis. Lax mi Vessels & Anr [2005
(1) JCC (NI) 86], a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court has laid down the law in the following terms:
"4. As per Section 138 of the Act the drawer of a
dishonoured cheque only is liable for punishment. If the
F 'person' that committed the offence under Section 138 of
the Act is a company the Directors and the per-son-in- '
charge of the affairs of the company, who look after the
day to day affairs of that company, apart from the company,
would also be liable for the said offence. by virtue of Section
G 141 of the Act. As stated earlier there is no scope for
invoking Section 141 of the Act because the dishonoured
cheque was not issued for and on behalf of a company. ~·
Since petitioner. admittedly, did not draw the dishonoured
cheque on an account 11a1ntained by him in a ban!<. and
I-! since there is no scope for invoking Section 141 of the Act
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1093
_;. -(, TOURS PVT. LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

to rope in the petitioner as Managing Director of a A
company of which A-1 is the Director, merely because A-
1 is said to have given the dishonoured cheque in partial
or full settlement of a debt due to 1st respondent from a
company of which petitioner is the Managing Director,
'~
petitioner cannot be made liable for an offence under B
A
Section 138 of the Act. The fact that 1st respondent has
a right to sue petitioner also for recovery of the debt due
to him is not and cannot be a ground for making the
petitioner liable for an offence under Section 138 of the
Act, when the dishonoured cheque was not drawn for and c
on behalf of that company, on an account maintained by
it in a bank. Therefore the fact that A 1 who drew the
dishonoured cheque happens to be a Director in the
company of which petitioner is the Mar)aging4Director, for
the debt allegedly due to 1st respondent from the said
;..- D
company, is of no consequence."
40. In Girish Saxena v. Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors. [2007
(2) JCC (NI) 220], a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
Court opined:
E
"... It is settled law that only drawer of the cheque can be
prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act on the cheque getting dishonoured. Since
the petitioner was neither the drawer of the cheque nor it
is alleged that he was partner or proprietor of firm when
y F
cheque got dishonoured or he was the person responsible
for non payment of cheque amount, no offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be made
out against the petitioner."
41. I agree with the aforementioned decisions of the High G
Courts as having laid down the correct law.
/ .../ 42. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly.
Appeals are allowed.
i H
\
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
'r'
A V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. I have the benefit of going through
the opinion of my esteemed Brother Justice S.B. Sinha, J.
However, I am unable to agreed with the said judgment.
2. Leave granted in both the cases.

B 3. The presentjudgmentwill dispose of the Criminal Appeal ~

A
arising out of SLP (Criminal) 2094 of 2007 and also Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) 2117 of 2007. However,
for the convenience sake we will be dealing with the facts arising
out of SLP (Criminal) 2094 of 2007 which are identical with the
c facts arising out of SLP (Criminal) 2117 of 2007.
4. The facts have been succinctly stated in the judgment,
therefore, the same need not be referred here. It is an admitted
position that the appellant herein was a signatory to the cheque
and the said cheque was bounced. It is not as if the appellant
D herein suggests that she is not, in any way, connected with Ml .(
s.lntel Travels on whose cheque book she has iss 1 1ed the
cheque. The appellant had the authority to use the cheque book
and sign on behalf of Mis. Intel Travels. Even if she wrote a cheque
•
on the cheque-book of Mis.Intel Travels for paying her own debts
E and the cheque is bounced, the offence under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") will be complete atleast against her. That is the clear import
of the language of Section 138 of the Act and her act is squarely J,;;

covered under the said Section. The High Court had correctly
F relied on Section 139 of the Act. We accept that finding of the y
High Court. It is true that for a proper complaint under Section ...
138 of the Act, the cheque must have been drawn by a person
and secondly the account must be maintained by "such person"
and it should have been given for payment of amount of money
G to another person from out of that account for the discharge of
any debt or other liability and when such cheque is returned by
the bank unpaid because of the insufficient funds to honour the lo-
cheque. Then such person would be liable under Section 138
of the Act. In the present case, the account was being maintained .i
by "Intel Travels" and the appellan! had the authority to sign the
H
ANEETA HADA v. M/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1095

.... -{
TOURS PVT LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

cheque of that account. Therefore, there will be a clear liability if A
the appellant used the cheque which she had the authority to
use and that too for discharging the debt. It must be pointed out
at this juncture that the words in Section 138 of the Act are "any
debt" or "other liability". In this case since M/s. Intel Travels was
maintaining the account and the appellant had the authority to B
... operate the same, the conditions will be satisfied even if it was
......
given for the discharge of the liability of the appellant.

5. Even if it is presumed that the account was meant to be
maintained by the company, since the appellant was authorized
signatory, it will have to be presumed that she had the authority c
to operate the account. Again even if it is presumed that the
cheque was issued_.by the company, that will make no difference
as the appellant has put her signatures on the cheque which
signature she was authorized to put. This is apart from the fact
that as yet no evidence is led for proving as to whose debt was D
sought to be discharged by the cheques which were
> dishonoured.
6. The legal fiction created by the Legislature under Section
138 of the Act is to be found via Section 141 where along with
the company, every person who was incharge of and was E
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business is
also made guilty. However, sub-section (2) of Section 141 which
starts with non obstante clause creates an "additional criminal
liability", in that, the language of the sub-section is as follows:
"141 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section F
(1 ), where any offence under this Act has been committed
by a company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary, or other officer of the company, such G
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
,' ·o(
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
A glance at this provision would suggest that sub-section
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R.

A
).-· .....
(2) starts with the non obstante clause and fixes additional
criminal liability. That is clear from the words "such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be
guilty of that offence". In using the cheque book of Mis. Intel
Travels, which the appellant was authorized to use and in signing
B the same which cheque ultimately was bounced, it would have +
to be presumed that the signatory of the cheque shall also be .1.

deemed to be guilty of the offence.
7. Even if the liability against the appellant is vicarious
herein on account of the offence having allegedly been
c committed by M/s. Intel Travels, it would have to be presumed
that the appellant had also committed the offence. However,
though M/s. Intel Travels has not been joined as an accused,
that would be of no consequences.
8. There can be no quarrel against the proposition that a
D
company can be proceeded against in the criminal proceeding
even where the imposition of sentence 1s provided for. That law
is laid down in Standard Chartered Bank & Others v. Directorate
of Enforcement & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 530]. However, there is
nothing in that judgment to suggest that there cannot be a
E
prosecution of the signatory aione in the absence of the company
like Intel Travels in this case.
9. It is true that in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V Neeta
Bhalla & Anr. [(2005) 8 SCC 89] a vicarious liability has been
F found against the person responsible for running the company
where the principal accused is the company. However, it is
nowhere laid down in SMS Pharmaceuticals case that unless
the company itself is made an accused, the person responsible
for running the same, in the present case, the signatory of the
G cheque, cannot be joined as an accused. Even in Sabitha
Ramamurty & Anr. V R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya (2006 (9)
SCALE 212] such precise observations are not to be found.
• ,
~

10. In the present case it is yet to be decided as to whether
the liability was that of the company or the api)ellant herself. It
H could be personal liability of the appellant herself for discharging
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1097
TOURS PVT. LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

her debt for which she might have misused the cheque-book of A
the company. Even under such circumstances the offence
against her could be complete is not known at this stage since
no evidence has been led in this regard. Therefore, the inference
that the liability was that of the company and she was merely
"' -~
vicariously liable would, therefore, be a premature finding. On B
the other hand even if she has misused the cheque-book to
discharge her own liability, taking advantage of her authorization
to put the signatures on the cheque-book of Mis.Intel Travels,
she still would be liable to be proceeded against and it would
be a question between herself and the company whether she c
has committed any offence vis-'-vis the company also. At this
stage, however, it is not possible to say anything without any
evidence having been led.
11. Law laid down in S. V Muzumdar & Ors. V Gujarat
State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. & Anr [(2005) 4 SCC 173], Sarav D
Investment and Financial Consultants Pvt. Ud. & Anr V Llyods
Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund & Anr
[2007 (12) SCALE 123] as also in K. Srikanth Singh v. North
East Securities Ltd. & Anr [(2007) 9 SCALE 371] does not
even impliedly suggest that unless the company is joined as an E
accused it is not possible to proceed against the signatory of
the cheque.
12. A close examination of the decision in SMS
Pharmaceuticals's case (cited supra) as also the decision in
N. Rangachari v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2007 (5) SCALE F
821] does not show such extreme proposition. All that SMS
Pharmaceuticals and N. Rangachari say is that the prosecution
could be launched not only against the company on behalf of
which the cheque issued has been dishonoured but it could also
be initiated against every person who, at that time of committing G
the offence, was incharge and was responsible for the affairs of
> i the company. However, it does not mean that both the accused
must be joined together for proper prosecution and that the
signatory of the cheque cannot individually be prosecuted in
the absence of the company. H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A 13. A complaint has been made against the two acct.:sed
persons, namely, Smt.Aneeta Hada who is described as
Director of Mis.Intel Travels and also Anil Hada who has also
been described as Director of the company. It is then specifically
suggested in the complaint that the accused persons used to
B purchase the air-tickets for their clients and that they had
purchased the air-tickets from the complainant from time to time
and issued the cheques worth Rs.5, 10,000/- and Rs.4,21,000/
-. It is specifically stated that Accused No.1 also used to conduct
the business of her company and she also used to purchase
c the tickets from the complainant. The basic complaint, therefore,
is against two accused persons in their individual capacity,
though they might be purchasing the tickets for their traveling
company. However, merely because of that fact one cannot
reach at a conclusion that in the absence of M/s. Intel Travels
D the two accused persons and more particularly the appellant
herein who was the signatory to the cheque and whose cheque
was Dounced cannot be prosecuted. That could not be the import
of the decision in Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. V State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. [2007 (5) SCALE 479], SMS
E Pharmaceuticals (cited supra) or the decision in N.K. Wahi v.
Shekhar Singh & Ors. [2007 (4) SCALE 188].
14. In the decision in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd.
[(2000) 1 sec 1], it so happened that the company itself was in
liquidation and the Division Bench of this Court was considering
F the question as to whether the signatory to the cheque could be
proceeded against. The expressions in paragraph 12 of this
judgment are apposite. The words used in Section 141(1) of
the Act as also the words "shall also" used in sub-section (2) of
Section 141 had been held to bring the third category of persons
G additionally within the dragnet of the offence on an equal path.
The words "company need not be proceeded against" cannot
be held as obiter dicta. Further there is nothing conflicting in the ) ~
aforesaid two judgments in the cases of Anil Hada & SMS
Pharmaceuticals. On the other hand a reading of the judgment
H in Ani/ Hada's case would suggest that the court therein
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1099
TOURS PVT. LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
-(
considered the law laid down in State of Madras v. C. V Parekh A
[(1970) 3 sec 491] wherein the analogous provisions under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section
1Oof that Act fell for consideration. There also the private limited
company was not included as an accused and the question was

.. as to whether the Managing Director alone could be proceeded B
against. This judgment was considered in the celebrated
judgment in Sehoratan Agarwal v. State of MP [(1987) 3 SCC
684]. The Court not only explained the observations earlier made
in C. V Parekh's case (cited supra) but went on to hold further
as follows: c
"Any one or more or all of them may be prosecuted and
punished. The company alone may be prosecuted. The
person in charge only may be prosecuted. The conniving
officer may individually be prosecuted. One, some or all
may be prosecuted. There is no statutory compulsion D
that the person in charge or an officer of the company
may not be prosecuted unless he be ranged alongside
the company itself Section 10 indicates the persons who
may be prosecuted where the contravention is made by
the company. It does not lay down any condition that the E
person in charge or an officer of the company may not be
separately prosecuted if the company itself is not
prosecuted. Each or any of them may be separately
prosecuted or along with the company."

(Emphasis Supplied) F

Ultimately the law laid down in Sheoratan Aggarwal's case
was approved by the Bench. The Court ultimately held in para
21 as under:
"We, therefore, hold that even if the prosecution G
proceedings against the company were not taken or could
not be continued, it is no bar for proceeding against the
other persons falling within the purview of sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 141 of the Act. In the light of the
aforesaid view we do not consider it necessary to deal H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R.

A with the remaining question whether winding up order of
a company would render the company non-existent."
(Emphasis Supplied)
It will, therefore, be seen that the question as to whether
s the persons like accused alone in the absence of the company
having been made accused could be proceeded against or not
had directly fallen for consideration and it cannot be said that
any observations in Anil Hada's case by any chance could be
viewed as obiter. This is a binding precedent.
C 15. The ratio laid down in Anil Hada's case was applicable
to the factual matrix thereof which is identical here. The question
has been directly decided that the prosecution of the company
is not a sine qua non for the prosecution of the other persons
who fall within the second and third categories, namely, those
o who were incharge and responsible for the business of the
company.
16. Even the law laid down in Raghu
Lakshminarayananan v. Fine Tubes [2007 (5) SCALE 353],
would not be apposite. In that case the question was whether
E the persons in the second category; as in the present case, could
be prosecuted in the absence of the company.
17. The principle "lex non cogit ad impossibi/ia" would
not apply here, because of the language of Section 141 of the
F Act and the present appellant would be completely liable since
the cheques signed by her were bounced.
18. Since the decision in Sheoratan Agarwal' case (cited
supra) has already been considered by the Division Bench of
this Court and relied upon in the decision in Anil Hada, it need
G not be considered afresh.
19. Lastly, since this question was already covered by Anil
Hada's case, the appellant would be liable to be prosecuted .< '
even when Mis.Intel Travel had not been joined as an accused.
It is in the light of decision in Anil Hada that subsequent decisions
H in Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. v. A. Chinnaswami [JT 1999
ANEETA HADA v. MIS. GODFATHER TRAVELS & 1101
TOURS PVT LTD. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

(10) SC 236] and Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla [JT 2001 A
(1) SC 325] would have to be read. The other cases referred to,
one of Kerala High Court in Pramod v. C.K. Velayudhan & Ors.
[(2006) 1 JCC (NI) 62] and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State
of Gujarat [(2004) 7 SCC 15: 2004 Cri. LJ 4249] in my opinion
are not ap.posite to the present controversy. B

20. The decisions in Andhra Pradesh High Court reported
in B.S.K. Prasad v. Mls.Laxmi Vessels [2005 (1) LJ (NOC) 7:
2004 Cri. LJ 4079 (AP)] and K. Seetharam Reddy v. K.
Radhika Rani [(2002) 112 Company Cases 204 (AP) support
the view that the person who has drawn the cheque, in case the C
cheque is dishonoured, is liable under Section 138 of the Act
itself.
21. No comment is required on ~he reported decision in
B.S.K. Prasad's case (cited supra) since the decision in that
0
case turns on the evidence led in that case. That opportunity
has still not been given to th8 prosecution in this case and it is
not known uptil now as to whether the cheque issued by the
accused was issued on behalf of the company or to pay off her
own debts. Again the judgment does not say anywhere that the E
signatory to the cheque cannot alone be prosecuted.
22. Appellant's reliance on the last case in Girish Saxena
v. Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors. [(2007) 2 JCC (NI) 220] is also
unnecessary since in that case the accused was not a signatory
to the cheque. The decision in that case would not be applicable F
to the present case.
23. In view of the above I would be of the opinion that the
appeals must be dismissed.
In view of the difference of opinion, let the matters be placed G
before three-Judge Bench. The Registry is directed to place
the records before the Hon'ble the chief Justice of India for
appropriate order.
S.K.S. Matters referned to larger Bench.
H