MANNALAL CHAMARIA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,MADAN B. LOKUR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000213-000213 / 2006
Diary number: 3225 / 2005
Advocates: RAKESH K. SHARMA Vs
TARA CHANDRA SHARMA
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2006
Mannalal Chamaria & Anr. ....Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2006
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2006
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The question arising for consideration in these appeals
relates to the alleged failure (and consequential effect) of
Pradip Sarkar to specifically state in his complaint filed under
Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 that the appellants/accused persons were in
Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 1 of 5
Page 2
charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of
M/s. Heritage Herbs Ltd. of which they were said to be
Directors.
2. In a complaint filed on 31st March, 2001, Pradip Sarkar
alleged that Heritage Herbs had made an offer for collecting
money from the market with a view to allot land to the intending
investors. On the basis of the offer made, Pradip Sarkar invested
an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Heritage Herbs issued three
receipt-cum-allotment letters for three plots of land to Pradip
Sarkar. At the time of handing over the receipt-cum-allotment
letters, Pradip Sarkar was also handed over three cheques of Rs.
61,000/- each post dated to 29th October, 2000. These cheques
were issued by Heritage Herbs and were signed by Raj Kumar
Chamaria as Chairman of the said concern.
3. All the three cheques were deposited by Pradip Sarkar but
were dishonoured by the concerned bank. This led Pradip Sarkar
to take steps to issue a notice to and initiate proceedings against
Heritage Herbs and Raj Kumar Chamaria under the provisions of
Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments
Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 2 of 5
Page 3
Act, 1881.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings Raj Kumar
Chamaria died on 10th December, 2003.
5. Thereafter, Pradip Sarkar moved an application for
impleading the appellants as accused persons. The application
was allowed and the appellants were impleaded as accused
persons by the concerned Magistrate by an order dated 28th April,
2004 and summons issued to them.
6. Feeling aggrieved by their impleadment and summons
issued to them, the appellants preferred Criminal Revision
Petitions in the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed the
petitions.
7. The appellants have challenged the order of the Calcutta
High Court and the only contention urged is that no specific
allegations were made against them either in the complaint as
originally filed on 31st March, 2001 or in the amended complaint
filed on 28th April 2004.
8. We have been taken through both the complaints by learned
counsel for the appellants and find that there is no allegation
Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 3 of 5
Page 4
worth the name against any of the appellants in either of the
complaints. Insofar as the first complaint is concerned, the
appellants were not even made parties and therefore there is no
question of any allegations being made against them in that
complaint. As far as the second complaint is concerned, the only
allegation made is to be found in paragraph 6 thereof which reads
as follows:-
“That in this context your petitioner refers to the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, where it has been specifically stated that if the offender is the company then the person who at the time of the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, other Directors, Manager, Secretary or other officers of the company shall be guilty of the offence, unless the persons referred to above prove otherwise, as per the saving clause of the said section. In section 5 of the Companies Act, also made those officers responsible for crime committed by the company.”
9. The law on the subject is now very well-settled by a series of
decisions rendered by this Court and it is not necessary to repeat
the views expressed time and again. Suffice it to say, that the
law has once again been stated in A.K.Singhania vs. Gujarat
State Fertilizer Company Ltd.1 to the effect that it is necessary
1 MANU/SC/1081/2013 Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 4 of 5
Page 5
for a complainant to state in the complaint that the person
accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the
business of the company. Although, no particular form for making
such an allegation is prescribed, and it may not be necessary to
reproduce the language of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, but a reading of the complaint should
show that the substance of the accusation discloses that the
accused person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct
of the business of the company at the relevant time. From the
averment made in the complaint, which is reproduced above, it
can safely be said that there is no specific or even a general
allegation made against the appellants.
10. Under these circumstances, the complaint against the
appellants deserves dismissal. A contrary view taken by the High
Court cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed
and the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
……………………………………J (Ranjana Prakash Desai)
Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 5 of 5
Page 6
……………………………………J (Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi; March 25, 2014
Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 6 of 5
Page 7
Crl. Appeal No. 213 of 2006 Page 7 of 5