High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed: CRL.A Nos.1390/2004, 1391/2004, 1393...
The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd v Pattasseril Cement Marketing & Others
Case / Petition Number:CRL.A Nos.1390/2004; 1391/2004; 1393/2004; 1394/2004; 1395/2004; 1412/2004; Crl.Rev.Pet. Nos.2419/2004 to 2424/2004
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2020-11-12
- Court Decision / Holding
- Criminal Appeals disposed of by common judgment: CRL.A Nos.1390/2004, 1391/2004, 1393/2004, 1394/2004, 1395/2004 and 1412/2004 are dismissed; Six Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.2419/2004 to 2424/2004 are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners (1st and 2nd accused) are set aside and they are set at liberty; bail bonds, if any, cancelled. The acquittals of accused Nos.3 and 4 (Dr. Saramma Elias and Ravindhar Elias) are maintained. The overall disposition is that the criminal appeals are dismissed, revisions allowed, with 1st and 2nd accused acquitted and released, while the earlier acquittals of 3rd and 4th accused remain intact.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed: CRL.A Nos.1390/2004, 1391/2004, 1393/2004, 1394/2004, 1395/2004, 1412/2004. Allowed: Crl.R.P Nos.2419/2004 to 2424/2004. Accused 1 and 2 acquitted/conviction set aside; Accused 3 and 4 acquittals maintained; Overall disposal by common judgment dated 12-11-2020.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd, 43, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-700 071, represented by its Constituted Attorney Sri R.H. Suryavamshi
Respondents
- Dr. Saramma Elias, Partner, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam
- Ravindhar, Partner, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam
- State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri K.P. Vijayan
- • Sri R.H. Suryavamshi
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri E.M. Murugan
- • Sri Praveen K. Joy
- • Sri Vargheese C. KuriaKose
- • Sri Vargheese Babu
- • Sri K.B. Udayakumar (Public Prosecutor)
Case Synopsis & Summary
Six criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were instituted by The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd against Pattasseril Cement Marketing and partners in six C.C. Nos. 1809–1815 of 1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The accused issued cheques Exts P1–P6 in discharge of liability; the cheques were signed by Susan Jimmy as Managing Partner, though she is not an accused in all six cases. The trial court convicted the 1st and 2nd accused (the firm Pattasseril Cement Marketing and Jimmy Elias) under Sec. 138 NI Act, while acquitting accused 3 and 4 (Dr. Saramma Elias and Ravindhar Elias). The Sessions Court partly allowed the appeals, acquitting accused 3 and 4 while upholding the conviction against 1st and 2nd. The Tata filed six criminal revisions and six Crl.A. appeals challenging the common judgment dated 27.2.2004. The Kerala High Court, in a common judgment dated 12.11.2020, upheld the acquittals of accused 3 and 4 and reversed the conviction of accused 1 and 2, holding that the prosecution could not show that the 2nd accused was in charge or responsible for the firm’s conduct at the time of the offence; notices to the firm did not establish liability on the signatory who was not an accused. The High Court disposed of all matters by dismissing the appeals and allowing the revisions, with the 1st and 2nd accused being set at liberty. The matter was decided by a single judge, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, on 12 November 2020.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Only the person who issued the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 NI Act unless there is evidence to the contrary.
- Company officials concerned can be arrayed as accused in a complaint only if such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time the offence was committed (Achankunju P.C v. House of Tiles, Koothatukulam & Others) – distinguished.
- Vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act: every person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be deemed guilty under Sec. 138 when the company commits the offence.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant contends that the 2nd accused was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the firm at the material time. The notice to Pattasseril Cement Marketing cannot suffice to convict the 1st and 2nd accused since the cheques were signed by Susan Jimmy, the Managing Partner, who is not an accused in all six cases. The prosecution must prove the role of the 2nd accused as ‘in charge’ under Section 141 NI Act; mere receipt of notices by the firm cannot establish that the 2nd accused personally bore the responsibility for the firm’s day-to-day conduct. The complaint lacks explicit averments tying the 2nd accused to managing the firm’s affairs; the signatory of the cheques is the Managing Partner, not the 2nd accused. The section 141 liability cannot be invoked without evidence that the 2nd accused was in charge of the firm.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the 2nd accused was in charge or responsible for the firm’s conduct under Section 141 NI Act; a managing partner or officer of the firm can be liable for the offence even if not the signer of the cheque. The notices and documents (Exts D1–D6) show that the firm recognized the managing partner’s involvement; the 2nd accused’s role as officer of the firm justifies vicarious liability under Section 141; the acquittals of 3rd and 4th accused were not unjustified given the evidence.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Achankunju P.C v. House of Tiles, Koothatukulam & Others | 2017(3) KHC 440 | Distinguished | The High Court expressly disagreed with the proposition that company officials can be arrayed as accused solely based on notices; the court distinguished this prior view when applying section 138 NI Act. |
| Kairali Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. & another v. Pullengadi Service Co-operative Society Ltd. & another | 2006 KHC 1639 | Positive | Court observed that the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time could be liable under Sec. 141 NI Act; used to assess liability in present case. |
| Rajagopalan P. v. P.C.Jose & another | 2016(2) KHC 559 | Positive | Cited for scope of Section 141 liability and the need to show the person in charge of the firm. |
| Kuruvilla K. Thomas v. State of Kerala & others | 2019(5) KHC 458 | Mentioned Only | Cited among authorities discussing Sec. 141; not applied as a direct precedent in the present fact pattern. |
| Harihara Krishnan N. v. J.Thomas | 2017(4) KHC 699 | Mentioned Only | Cited in context of Sec. 141 discussions; treated as background authority without controlling the outcome. |
| Ramesh G. v. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & another | 2019 KHC 6590 | Positive | Apex Court observation that a complaint with sufficient description of the partnership business will stand; used to emphasize need for description of roles and responsibilities in the present case. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd v Pattasseril Cement Marketing & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
1
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **CRL.A.No.1390 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.ANO.361/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1810/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD, 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA - 700 071, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, SRI.R.H.SURYAVAMSHI.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:**
**1 DR.SARAMMA ELIAS, PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2 SRI.RAVINDHAR, PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.**
**3 STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
**R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU**
**THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1391/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
2
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **CRL.A.No.1391 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.ANO.362/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1811/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD, 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA 700 071,, REP. BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, SRI.R.H.SURYAVAMSHI.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 DR.SARAMMA ELIAS PARTNER, H.B.NO.3,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2 RAVINDHAR PARTNER PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3 STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU**
**R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
3
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **CRL.A.No.1393 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.ANO.364/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1814/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD., 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA-700 071,, REPRESENTED BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, SRI.R.H.SURYAVAMSHI.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:**
**1 DR.SARAMMA ELIAS, PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2 SRI.RAVINDHAR, PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3 STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
4
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **CRL.A.No.1394 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.363/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1812/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD, 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA 700 071, REP BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI.R.H.SURYAVAMSHI.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:**
**1 DR.SARAMMA ELIAS, PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2 SRI.RAVINDHAR, PARTNER H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3 STATE REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
5
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **CRL.A.No.1395 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.360/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1809/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD., 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA 700 071,, REPRESENTED BY THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, SRI.R.H.SURYAVAMSHI.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:**
**1 DR.SARAMMA ELIAS, PARTNER, H.B.NO. 3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2 SRI.RAVINDHAR, PARTNER H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3 STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
6
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **CRL.A.No.1412 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.365/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1815/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:**
**THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD, 43,CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA-700 071 REP.BY, THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI.R.H.SURYAVAMSHI.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SMT.K.S.JINI SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SMT.P.F.ROSY SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI SRI.SURESH SAMUEL SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:**
**1 DR.SARAMMA ELIAS, PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2 SRI.RAVINDHAR PARTNER, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3 STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
7
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
**Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2419 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.365/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1815/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:**
**1 M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 36,, REP. ALLEGEDLY BY JIMMY EALIAS, AGED 44, S/O.LATE C.N.ELIAS. 2 JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, S/O.LATE C.N.ELIAS ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MANAGING PARTNER, PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING, H.B/NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THE TATA IRON STEEL COMPANY LTD. 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP. BY, AREA SALES MANAGER, P.V.A.S.SHARMA. R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
8
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
**Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2420 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.360/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1809/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:**
**1 M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM., COCHIN-36, REPRESENTED ALLEGEDLY BY JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N. ELIAS. 2 JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, SO.LATE C.N.ELIAS, ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MANAGING PARTNER, PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THE TATA IRON STEEL COMPANY LIMITED 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP. BY, AREA SALES MANAGER, P.V.A. SHARMA. R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
9
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2421 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.364/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1814/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED**
**1 M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36,, REPRESENTED ALLEGEDLY BY JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS. 2 JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44 S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS, ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MANAGING PARTNER, PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THE TATA IRON STEEL COMPANY LIMITED 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP. BY AREA SALES, MANAGER, P.V.A.S. SHARMA.**
**R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
10
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
**Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2422 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.363/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1812/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED**
- **1 M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36,, REPRESENTED BY ALLEGEDLY BY JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS.**
**2 JIMMY ELIAS AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS, ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MANAGING PARTNER, PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
- **2 THE TATA IRON STEEL COMPANY LIMITED 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP. BY AREA SALES MANAGER, P.V.A.S. SHARMA.**
**R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
11
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
**Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2423 OF 2004(C)**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.362/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1811/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED**
**1 M/S.PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36, REPRESENTED ALLEGEDLY BY JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS. 2 JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS, ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MANAGING PARTNER, PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THE TATA IRON STEEL COMPANY LIMITED 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP. BY AREA SALES, MANAGER, P.V.A.S. SHARMA.**
**R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
12
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942**
**Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2424 OF 2004**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO.361/2003 DATED 27-02-2004 OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.1810/1998 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED**
**1 M/S. PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36, REPRESENTED ALLEGEDLY BY JIMMY ELIAS, AGED 44,, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS.**
**2 JIMMY ELIAS AGED 44, S/O. LATE C.N.ELIAS, ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MANAGING PARTNER, PATTASSERIL CEMENT MARKETING, H.B.NO.3, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.**
**BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
**2 THE TATA IRON STEEL COMPANY LTD. 43 CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, CALCUTTA, REP. BY AREA SALES, MANAGER, P.V.A.S.SHARMA.**
**R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.B UDAYAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SAMUEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN**
**THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1390/2004 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
13
## **JUDGMENT**
**[ CRL.A.1390/2004, CRL.A.1391/2004, CRL.A.1393/2004, CRL.A.1394/2004, CRL.A.1395/2004, CRL.A.1412/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.2419/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.2420/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.2421/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.2422/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.2423/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.2424/2004 ]**
## **Dated this the 12th day of November 2020**
These appeals and revisions are filed challenging the same judgment. Therefore, these appeals and revisions are disposed by a common judgment.
2. The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited initiated six cases against M/s.Pattasseril Cement Marketing, H.B No.3, Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam, and its partners alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cases are numbered as C.C. Nos.1809 of 1998, 1810 of 1998, 1811 of 1998, 1812 of 1998, 1814 of 1998 and 1815 of 1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the trial court)
3. The case of the complainant is that, the accused was indebted to the complainant for certain amount of money on account of the credit purchase facility availed of by them from the complainant. In part payment of that amount, the accused issued
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
14
cheque for Rs.1 Lakh on 19.03.1998. When the cheque was presented it was dishonoured. Statutory notice was issued. Even then the amount was not paid. Hence the first complaint was filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1809/1998. Similarly, C.C.No.1810 of 1998, C.C.No.1811 of 1998, C.C.No.1812 of 1998, C.C.No.1814 of 1998, and C.C.No.1815 of 1998 were filed and all the cases were take on file by the learned Magistrate, and summons was issued in all the cases.
4. Joint trial was allowed in these six cases as per order dated 24.07.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.10490/2002. To substantiate the case one witness was examined on the side of the complainant. Exts. P1 to P30 are the exhibits on the side of the prosecution. Exts. D1 to D6 are marked as defence documents.
5. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1[st] accused is a firm. Therefore, fine was imposed as far as the 1[st] accused is concerned and accused Nos.2 to 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment with payment of compensation. Separate sentences were ordered in all the six cases.
6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed six separate appeals before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
15
The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence allowed the appeal in part. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Nos.3 and 4 in all the cases were set aside and they were acquitted. But the conviction and sentence imposed against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused in all the cases are confirmed and to that extent all the Criminal Appeals were dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.R.P Nos.2419/2004, 2420/2004, 2421/2004, 2422/2004, 2423/2004 and 2424/2004. Against the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4, the complainant filed Crl.A Nos.1390/2004, 1391/2004, 1393/2004, 1394/2004, 1395/2004 and 1412/2004. Since these revisions and appeals are filed challenging the common judgment dated 27.2.2004 in Crl.A No.360/2003 to Crl.A Nos.365/2003, as I said earlier, I am disposing these cases by a common judgment.
8. The case of the complainant, as I said earlier, is that Exts.P1 to P6 cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of the liability of the accused to the complainant. A perusal of Exts.P1 to P6 cheques, it is clear that the cheques are issued by Pattasseril Cement Marketing represented by its Managing Partner. The cheques were signed
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
16
by one Susan Jimmy. But admittedly, this Susan Jimmy is not an accused in all the six cases filed by the complainant. The complaints are filed by the complainant against four accused in which the 1[st] accused is M/s.Pattasseril Cement Marketing represented by its Managing Partner Jimmy Elias. Admittedly, the Managing Partner of the firm is Susan Jimmy. That is clear from Ext.D6 which is the original partnership deed. Accused No.2 in the complaint is Jimmy Elias, who is noted as the Managing Partner. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are Dr.Saramma Elias and Ravindhar Elias **,** who are also shown as partner of the above firm. Therefore, admittedly, the Managing Partner of M/s.Pattasseril Cement Marketing is Susan Jimmy. She is the person who signed Exts.P1 to P6. She is not prosecuted by the complainant. No notice is issued to her. But the trial court convicted all the four accused. But the appellate court was pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on accused Nos.3 and 4 because there is no evidence to show that they were in charge and responsible of the firm. But the appellate court was pleased to confirm the conviction and sentence on accused Nos.1 and 2 observing that, notice is issued to M/s.Pattasseril Cement Marketing and to its Managing Partner. According to the learned Judge, the postal
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
17
acknowledgments are seen signed by the addressee affixing the seal “for Pattasseril Cement Marketing, Managing Partner”. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that there is no case for the accused that the address of the firm is not as mentioned in the notice and the postal acknowledgment card referred to above. Since the notice is received by the addressee affixing the seal as referred to above, the appellate court has concluded that it has to be found that the notices were received by the Managing Partner or a person authorized by the Managing Partner of first accused firm. Therefore it is concluded by the appellate court that there is due notice as required under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act to Pattasseril Cement Marking, which is a firm and which is arrayed as the 1[st] accused.
9. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge found that as per Ext.D6 and other documents Jimmy Elias, who is arrayed as the 2[nd] accused, is not a Managing Partner or even a partner of the 1[st] appellant firm. But the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the 2[nd] accused is also liable with the aid of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act says that every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm can be found
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
18
guilty of the offence under Section 138 N.I Act. According to the learned Sessions Judge, since the 2[nd] accused was not a partner or the Managing Partner, the prosecution has to prove that the 2[nd] accused was in charge or was in responsible to the conduct of the business of the firm. But the learned Sessions Judge found that notices sent to the firm were acknowledged by a person evidently authorized by the firm. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge says that the fact that the seal referred to as earlier was affixed on all those acknowledgment cards would prove to the fact that the notices were received by the duly authorized person of that firm. The lower court also found that the 2[nd] accused sent Ext.P26 reply notice. The receipt of six notices were acknowledged and reply letter was also sent. Since the 2[nd] accused requested the complainant to inform the latter regarding the request made in the reply to enable the 2[nd] accused and others to pay the amount, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the 2[nd] accused was an officer of the firm, who was also responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm.
10. The point for decision in these appeals and revisions are the following:
i) Whether the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4 by the lower court are justified or not.
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
19
ii) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused are sustainable.
## 11. Point No.1
The Criminal Appeals are filed challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4. The appellate court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the accused Nos.3 and 4 are not guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The finding of the lower appellate court as far as the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 4 are there in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment. Paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment of the appellate court is extracted hereunder:
“30. It is important to note that even as per Ext.D6, including the managing partner, there were only three partners. If the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum are to be accepted then the managing partner Susan Jimmy and appellant No.3 Dr.Saramma Elias were not actively participating in the business of the firm. If that be so, the only other male member was appellant No.4. Ravindhar Elias. Hence going by ground No.8 in the appeal memorandum it has to be found that A4 – Ravindhar Elias, being the male member among the partners, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. The commission of the offence by the firm has been proved. It cannot be said that apart from the firm no other person can be found liable. The business activity of day today affairs of the firm can only be carried out by a person or persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Clause 9 and Clause 10 of Ext.D6 may show the duty or responsibility of A3 and A4 in the conduct of the business. But no effort was made by the complainant to speak regarding any of those aspects to prove that A3 and A4 were actually responsible. Hence it cannot be said that the prosecution could prove the charge against A3 and A4.
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
20
Hence A3 and A4 cannot be found guilty of the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I Act.”
12. I see no reason to interfere with the above finding by the appellate court. As observed by the appellate court, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the 3[rd] and the 4[th] accused were actually responsible for the day to-day affairs of the firm. The appellate court after scanning the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the 3[rd] and 4[th] accused are not guilty. Therefore, according to me, there is nothing to interfere with the above acquittal order of accused Nos.3 and 4 by the lower appellate court. Therefore, the Criminal Appeals filed against the acquittal order of accused Nos.3 and 4 is to be dismissed.
13. Point No.2.
Then the question is whether the revisions by the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused are to be allowed, which is filed against the conviction and sentence. I perused the six cheques issued in this case. A perusal of these cheques will show that Susan Jimmy signed these cheques in her capacity as the Managing Partner for Pattasseril Cement Marketing. A perusal of Ext.D6 partnership deed will also show that Susan Jimmy is the Managing Partner of Pattasseril Cement Marketing. Simply because the notice is received by the firm, in the address of the firm, it cannot be concluded that the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused are guilty. Admittedly, Susan Jimmy is the Managing
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
21
Partner of the firm as evident by Ext.D6. As I stated earlier, simply because the notice is received by the firm, it cannot be said that a person who is not the signatory in the cheques can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act especially when the signatory is not an accused. There is no specific case to the complainant that, the Managing Partner Susan Jimmy is not in charge of the day today affairs of the firm.
14. In **Achankunju P.C v. House of Tiles, Koothatukulam & Others (2017(3) KHC 440)** it is stated that the company officials concerned can be arrayed as accused in a complaint only if such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time the offence was committed. The learned Sessions Judge observed that since a notice is received by the firm, it can be presumed that the 2[nd] accused is an officer of the firm and he can be prosecuted. But I cannot agree with the above finding of the lower court. As I stated earlier, the signatory of the cheque and the firm is to be prosecuted. Otherwise the complainant should state in the complaint and evidence that 2[nd] accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the time the offence was committed. A reading of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that only payee or holder in
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
22
due course can be prosecuted under the said provision. Similarly only the person who issued the cheque can be prosecuted under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless there is evidence to contrary.
15. The Apex Court in **Ramesh G. v. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & another (2019 KHC 6590** ) observed that when the complaint contains sufficient description of the nature of the partnership business which was being carried on, the role of each of the accused in the conduct of the business and specifically, in relation to the transactions which took place with the complainant, the prosecution will stand. I perused the complaint in this case. There is absolutely no averment in the complaint to the effect that the 2[nd] accused Jimmy Elias was the Managing Partner or the person in charge representing the 1[st] accused. There is no document also produced along with the complaint. Therefore, according to me, the prosecution against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused is unsustainable on that reason also. In **Kairali Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. & another v. Pullengadi Service Co-operative Society Ltd. & another (2006 KHC 1639)** this Court observed that the person who was in charge of an office at the time of commission of the offence alone would be liable. A perusal of Exts.P1 to P6 show that Susan Jimmy is the
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
23
signatory in the cheque. She is treated as the Managing Partner of the firm. In such circumstances, only the Susan Jimmy can be prosecuted and the prosecution against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused is not maintainable. Similarly, the 1[st] accused cannot be represented by the 2[nd] accused, who is not the signatory of the cheque.
16. Similarly, in **Rajagopalan P. v. P.C.Jose & another (2016(2) KHC 559)** , **Kuruvilla K. Thomas v. State of Kerala & others (2019(5) KHC 458)** and in **Harihara Krishnan N. v. J.Thomas (2017(4) KHC 699)** , this Court considered the scope of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and about the vicarious liability. In the light of the above judgments also, according to me, the prosecution against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused is not maintainable.
17. In the light of the above discussion, according to me, the conviction and sentence imposed on the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused is also not sustainable. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that 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 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. I cannot
Crl.A Nos.1390/04&conntd.cases
24
agree with the appellate court that the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused can be convicted based on Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act especially because the signatory of the cheques are one Susan Jimmy and there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the 2[nd] accused is the Managing Partner of the firm or atleast the person in charge of the affairs of the firm. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused is liable to be set aside.
Therefore, these Criminal Appeals and Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of in the following manner:
I) The Crl.A Nos. 1390/2004, 1391/2004, 1393/2004, 1394/2004, 1395/2004 and 1412/2004 are dismissed.
II)Crl.R.P Nos.2419/2004, 2420/2004, 2421/2004, 2422/2004, 2423/2004 and 2424/2004 are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners are set aside. They are set at liberty. The bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioners is cancelled.
## **Sd/-**
## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN**
## **JUDGE**
## **vpk/ab**