Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Joginder Kaur- trial abated vide order dated 12.12.2019
4. Harjeet Singh- trial abated vide order dated 28.06.2023
7. Final Order Accused 1 Company M/s Gold Automotives Pvt. Ltd. is convicted.
Accused no. 2 Suneet Kaur is acquitted.
2024.12.24 15:44:42 +0530 Balasubramanian, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 82; and Rajesh Jain V. Ajay Singh, [2023] 13 S.C.R. 788).
16. Liability of accused no. 1 company:
A. As per the complaint, complainant company has been stated to have supplied bearings/auto parts to Gold Automotives Pvt. Ltd. (accused no. 1 company from here on). The outstanding of accused no. 1 company has been stated to be Rs. 37,59,500/-. B. Complainant was specifically asked by Ld. Counsel for accused as to who issued the cheques in question, in the answer to which he stated that cheques in question were issued by Harjeet Singh (trial abated, accused no. 4 from here on) and not by Suneet Kaur (ac- cused no. 2 from here on). No suggestion has been given that cheques in question were not issued by accused no. 4. Thus, it amounts to admission on part of accused no. 1 company and ac- cused no. 2 that the cheques in question were issued by accused no.
C. Complainant has stated in his cross examination that cheques in question were issued by Harjeet Singh (accused no. 4, trial abated) and not by accused no. 2. No presumption u/s 139/118 NI Act has been raised against accused no. 2 as she is not the signatory of the cheques in question.
D. Section 141 (1) NI Act provides 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 respon- sible to the company for the conduct of the business of the com- pany, 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.
2024.12.24 15:45:01 +0530 G. Even Complainant has stated in cross examination that he used to deal with Harjeet Singh (accused no. 4, trial abated) and Jasdeep Singh (not an accused in the present case) and never dealt with Suneet Kaur (accused no. 2) regarding the transaction in question. H. Complainant has stated that the only reason averments have been made in the complaint qua accused no. 2 is that she is Director of accused no. 1 company and has derived profits from the company. No evidence has been produced by the complainant as to the state- ment that accused no. 2 was deriving profits from accused no. 1 company. The burden of proof to prove complicity of accused no.2 is on the complainant which has not been discharged. Even if ac- cused no. 2 was earning profits from accused no. 1 company, irre- spective, complainant was supposed to fulfill the requirements of Section 141 NI Act as discussed above. On the other hand, com- plainant has himself stated that he never dealt with accused no. 2. It is clear that accused no. 2 was neither in charge of nor was respon- sible to the accused no. 1 company for the conduct of the business of the accused no. 1 company.