BIJOY KUMAR MONI versus PARESH MANNA & ANR.

BIJOY KUMAR MONI versus PARESH MANNA & ANR.

The cheque was drawn on an account maintained by the company and signed by the accused as its Director/authorised signatory; Section 138 applies only where the cheque is drawn on an account maintained by the accused personally, and an authorised signatory is not the drawer for purposes of Section 138. Vicarious liability under Section 141 can be invoked only after the company (the drawer) is arraigned and held liable; no legal impediment prevented impleading the company here. Therefore prosecution against the accused in his individual capacity under Section 138 could not be maintained and the High Court's acquittal was correct; the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant / Complainant: Bijoy Kumar Moni; Respondent / Accused: Paresh Manna; Respondent (no.2): State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Order Acquitting Accused
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 138 NI Act, Section 139 NI Act, Section 141 NI Act, Dishonour of Cheque, Vicarious Liability, Drawer of Cheque, Authorised Signatory, Doctrine of Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia, Strict Construction of Penal Provisions, Cheating
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Criminal Law Company Law Section 138 NI Act Section 139 NI Act Section 141 NI Act Dishonour of Cheque Vicarious Liability +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bijoy Kumar Moni

Appellant / Complainant

Paresh Manna

Respondent / Accused

State of West Bengal

Respondent (no.2)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Order Acquitting Accused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution under Section 138 NI Act can proceed against an authorised signatory/director when the cheque is drawn on a company account without arraigning the company as accused
  2. 2 Whether an authorised signatory who signs a cheque on behalf of a company can be treated as the 'drawer' for the purpose of Section 138
  3. 3 Whether the exception embodied in the doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia allows proceeding against an authorised signatory without impleading the company

Ratio Decidendi

The cheque was drawn on an account maintained by the company and signed by the accused as its Director/authorised signatory; Section 138 applies only where the cheque is drawn on an account maintained by the accused personally, and an authorised signatory is not the drawer for purposes of Section 138. Vicarious liability under Section 141 can be invoked only after the company (the drawer) is arraigned and held liable; no legal impediment prevented impleading the company here. Therefore prosecution against the accused in his individual capacity under Section 138 could not be maintained and the High Court's acquittal was correct; the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.