Himachal Pradesh High Court
And District Hamirpur vs Unknown on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 121 of 2022
Between:-
SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR
KANUNGO SON OF SHRI
ISHWAR DASS, KANUNGO,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MAJHOT, P.O. ROPA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P. ....APPELLANT.
(BY SH. B.N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI MOHINDER BANSAL, SON
OF LATE SHRI DESH RAJ
BANSAL, CHAIRMAN/MD BLUE
BIRD CORPORATION,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT CORP.
SCO 46, CANAM PLAZA
CHAMBER NO. 126, 2ND FLOOR,
SECTOR 11 PANCHKULA,
(HARYANA) 134109. ....RESPONDENT
(BY SH.ARSH RATTAN, ADVOCATE).
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Appellant is complainant in complaint filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act), which has
been filed for dishonor of cheque issued by Blue Bird Corporation.
Respondent has been made an accused as Chairman/Managing
Director of Blue Bird Corporation-respondent.
2. Admittedly, Blue Bird Corporation is a registered firm which
stands proved on record from the documents exhibited by respondent
during trial. Blue Bird Corporation has not been arrayed as party. Trial
Court after taking into consideration provisions of Section 141 of NI Act
and pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada Vs.
Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 has
.
dismissed the complaint on the ground that Company/Firm has not been
arrayed as an accused which is imperative for maintaining a complaint
against Firm or the Managing Director/Chairman/Director of the Firm.
3. The Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada's case has observed
that first condition in such cases is that a Company should be held to be
liable; a charge has to be framed; a finding has to be recorded and the
liability of the person incharge of the Company only arises when the
contravention is by the Company itself and the Director or any other
Officer cannot be prosecuted without impleadment of the Company
being principal offender, except in a case where there is some legal
impediment to proceed against the Company and where despite making
it an accused, it cannot be proceeded against due to existence of a legal
bar.
4. In present case there is nothing on record to establish that
there was a legal bar or impediment to proceed against the company.
Therefore, complaint in present case without impleadment of the
Company is not sustainable.
5. In view of above exposition of law, I find no infirmity,
illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment, warranting
interference by this Court in appeal. Therefore, present appeal is
dismissed being devoid of any merits.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
18 May, 2022 Judge.
(Keshav)
