Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 773 (AP)

N. Sai Raghunandhan v. State of A. P.

2007-08-10

K.C.BHANU

body2007
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 197 of2006onthefile of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Prohibition and Excise), Anantapur, which was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Originally the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint against one N. Sai Raghunandan for the above offences. During the pendency of the case, the said Sai Raghunandan died. Therefore, the 2nd respondent herein filed an application under Section 29 of the N.I. Act to bring the legal representatives of Raghunandan on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the petitioners cannot be brought under the purview of Section 141 of the N.I.Act and therefore, question of prosecuting them does not arise in view of the fact that they have not issued the cheque in question. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 29 of the N.I. Act, the petitioners can be brought on record in view of the fact that all the death benefits have been derived by the petitioners herein and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted. 5. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act comes into play when a cheque drawn by a person in the account maintained by him. After complying certain conditions under the proviso, the offence has been made out. For the acts committed by some other persons, the persons cannot be prosecuted or convicted under the guise of vicarious liability. But Section 141 of the N.I.Act is a departure from the vicarious liability. Though the persons who have not committed the offence, still they were responsible for the acts committed by others if they come under Section 141 of the N.I.Act. Admittedly, the present petitioners cannot be brought under Section 141 of the N.I. Act as in charge and responsible for affairs of the company. Admittedly, they have not issued the cheque in question to the complainant. The brother of the petitioners issued the cheque and when it was bounced, after giving statutory legal notice, the complaint has been filed. 6. Admittedly, the present petitioners cannot be brought under Section 141 of the N.I. Act as in charge and responsible for affairs of the company. Admittedly, they have not issued the cheque in question to the complainant. The brother of the petitioners issued the cheque and when it was bounced, after giving statutory legal notice, the complaint has been filed. 6. The 2nd respondent herein drawn attention to Section 29 of the N.I.Act which reads as follows: "A legal heir of a deceased person who signs his name to a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is liable personally thereon unless he expressly limits his liability to the extent of the assets received by him as such." 7. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the liability which has been referred to under Section 29 of the Act is who signs on the pronote, bill of exchange or cheque would amount to only civil liability, but certainly not criminal liability. Therefore, the said provision has no application to the present facts of the case. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 197 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Prohibition and Excise), Anantapur. All the remedies available to the 2nd respondent under the law are left open.