Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon following decisions :

(i) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of N.Harihara Krishnan Vs. J.Thomas2;
(ii) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of K.Satyanarayan Vs. Madhur and another3;
(iii) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd1.
(iv) A judgment of this Court in case of Bharat Mathur, Ex-Vice President (Corp.) Services - M/s.Data Access India Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another4.

21. In the decision of this Court in Bharat Mathur, Ex-Vice President (Corp.) Sevices - M/s.Data Access India Ltd. (Criminal Writ Petition No.4419 of 2014) (supra), this Court had considered whether a director or an employee of the company can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act with the help of Section 141 of the Act, when the offence is allegedly committed by the company, without impleading the company as an accused. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of 26 of 35 APL.464.2016 Aneeta Hada (supra). Learned counsel for complainant had contended that the decision in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra) cannot have a retrospective effect. The Court has observed that the case pending against the petitioner therein filed by the complainant, did not reach finality and, therefore, the question of applicability of the said decision cited by the counsel for complainant in support of his arguments does not arise. The case before the Trial Court is governed by the principles laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra).