← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/38561/2021allowed

Sukhbir Singh v. Pawan Kumar Walia

2023-02-23Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta5 pages

 

        

 

 ! "#$# %!&' % (' ) * !

 + ,!- ./ ) 0 1 

2   342 5 % ,     

   !"#  

  $% & 

#  ,   $56 /7   ' (# )* + '#

,* # ! )

- ./.

0 

1)'

"*!

2 3#3 4*

 . -)5#*!# 

) 6* )  #   5#  ) ##  '

 -##  #*!!

     

+ 1      #*-#,*  #   )*        1 0   ##  -( )    )  ## #  6*  '

#!##      ,*# #  )  -(  #   '

"*!

2  # *

,* !

*  )

#

*#35 ))



*#  & )()

 )



# ) -)( ,*

*

 ##* &)! (  #*!!

 # ##

#- 

*# 

*#3



#  # - ## *# #!)(-

*##%

* ) )) !

&!) -)7 

*#) #)* 0 5 %''* 5%''8/0 85415$69#7:%

;95  )



))#*!!

 )

# *-*)  ) *% # !   

   89*  ' :       #     #!##-()  )## #6*'

  1 089*': ;  



*#)

#  #  )

 # * () ) ##

- 

*#-*  ) ()( # 

 ) !) -)(



##*-!## #

- ##5  #!  5#

 #   # - # *#

 ) * ###*

*

*# 5 0 5%''<  6 !0 7

#!) ##*

#-(<  #)

#*> ?In the case on hand, we are concerned with criminal liability on account of dishonour of a cheque. It primarily falls on the drawer, if it is a Company, then Drawer Company and is extended to the officers of the company. The normal rule in the cases involving criminal liability is against vicarious liability. To put it clear, no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. This normal rule is, however, subject to

exception on account of specific provision being made in statutes extending liability to others. For example, Section 141of the N.I. Act is an instance of specific provision that in case an offence under Section 138is committed by a company, the criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque will extend to the officers of the company. As a matter of fact, Section 141contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability can be extended. Inasmuch as the provision creates a criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with. In other words, the persons 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, the officers of the company, who are responsible for the acts done in the name of the company, are sought to be made personally liable for the acts which result in criminal action being taken against the company. In other words, 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 offence. It is true that the proviso to sub- section enables certain persons to prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of the offence. The liability under Section 141of the N.I. Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with the company, the principal accused being the company itself.

It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability." *    "*   1! /  !

1 $  6:7  9=9  4  9==   ,* # 

  

  *    

   . -) 5#*!# ## *  *   # 

 ,* *# #%

* ) )   *#-  )<



 ,* #

-( )  #  

 # #-)

    #!

-(<

%*!

#< * %-5 10,! * 5%5 8 % ('$:67  4 ;>?

   #!) #*  ) 

#

,*

)# !

& (!  

 

#



.5

*) -

 )( #!5 #) *  * ,*

# % - &

*  # -  -( (       -(   *#-   -*   



# )  

*!  #  

,*) -)( # *

  

-

# )(



 # (# )

,* # 

#

,*  * #

#    & -() # )) #'*% - < ( < ) #

)(

,* 

- # **

.5 #  )) -

*! #



,*  # # ,*# # #

-)< *) * %

* )

- # **)## ,* #-#-(

   (#   # %

* )  )# 9 

 +

.5    # )



# /

# )*

.5

- +

*# ! #



 !

* )))(* 

  !)   #- &-(#< */@ ,! * 5  10% ('$9;6#74+ /1A5

#

###*-(



 -(   *

* #% -  

5 #) )(

,*## #-) 

# )) ##*!!

,*  ,* #-( )

# ) ))(#*#  -) #  /

#

# #,* )(

-(

-

  * # 5#

# )#  #

#-( '  -

,* 

- # *#!)(

  ,* #- ##*

*)-(! 

*# #,*)(

- .

./.

0 

1)'

"*!

2 3#3 4* 

. -)5#*!# 

)   6* )   #   5#  ) ##  '

 -##  #*!!



  + 1 #*-#,* # )*    1 0   ##  -(  )    )  ## #  6*  -(,* #,* )(  ! "#$#  6, 7 *     2 @# &> A#@.

2 -)> A#@.