Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49. But difficulty will arise in respect of a Trust where there is a single Trustee. If there is a single trustee, obviously there is no combination of individuals and therefore, it will not fall within the ambit of 'association of individuals' so as to constitute a 'company' in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If it is eventually held that a Trust, having a single Trustee, is not a 'company', then the said Trustee cannot be prosecuted, whereas the Trust alone can be prosecuted for the offence committed by the Trust under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But, on the contrary, if there are two or more Trustees, for the offence committed by the Trust, as we have concluded above, the Trustees can also be prosecuted provided they were incharge of the day today affairs and conduct of the Trust. If this interpretation is adopted, then it will lead only to absurdity. It is the basic principle of interpretation that an enactment cannot be interpreted so as to result in absurdity. To avoid such absurdity, we have to make purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act so as to take forward the object of the Act.

65. Applying the above law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as I have already concluded, considering the intention of the Legislature while bringing in Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the fact that a Trust having two or more trustees will squarely fall within the ambit of 'association of individuals' which in turn will fall within the meaning of the term 'company', I am of the view that a Trust having a single trustee should also be brought within the definition of the term 'company' and thus the expression 'Trust' should be read into the Explanation 'a' to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If this interpretation is not given, certainly Section 138 and 141 of the Act will not have force and life, so far as they relate to a Trust having a single Trustee. Further, if one holds that a Trust having two or more trustees is a 'company' falling within the sweep of Section 138 and 141 of the Act, at the same time a Trust having a single trustee will not fall within the ambit of Section 141 and 138 of the Act, the result, as I have already concluded is only an absurdity. In order to avoid the said absurdity and in order to give force and life to the provisions of Section 138 and 141 of the Act, I hold that the expression 'company' as explained in Section 141 of the Act takes into its ambit a Trust having a single trustee also. In view of this interpretation, I firmly hold, that a Trust, having either a single trustee or two or more trustees, is a 'company' in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

66. My conclusions are summed up as follows:

(i) A Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, is a juristic person who is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(ii) A Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, having either a single trustee or two or more trustees, is a company in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(iii) For the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, committed by the Trust, every trustee, who was incharge of the day today affairs of the Trust shall also be liable for punishment besides the Trust."

16. The reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge are quite commendable and I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The principles explained in the said decision can be made directly applicable in the present case. In such circumstances, I hold that a Trust, either private or public / charitable or otherwise, is a juristic person who is liable for punishment for the punishable under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A Trust, either private or public / charitable or otherwise, having either a single trustee or two or more trustees is a company in terms of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. For the offence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 committed by the Trust, every trustee, who was incharge of the day today affairs of the Trust, shall also be liable for punishment besides the Trust.