Surendra Singh vs Sunil Yadav
2024 Latest Caselaw 14851 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Surendra Singh vs Sunil Yadav on 17 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRR No. 4583 of 2023 (SURENDRA SINGH Vs SUNIL YADAV)

Dated : 17-05-2024 Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri N.P.Varma - Advocate

for the applicant.

Registry is directed to call for records.

2. Heard on I.A.No.23542/2023 filed under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.

3. Applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months along with fine of Rs.20,29.200/- with default stipulation.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that complaint case was not maintainable before the trial Court. Company was not impleaded as party in complaint case. Only applicant, who is partner in firm and who has acted on behalf of firm is made accused in the case. Reliance is placed on a judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather of Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. - (2012) 5 SCC 661 . Reliance is

placed on paragraph-59 of the aforesaid judgment. In these circumstances, it is prayed that application may be allowed and sentence of applicant may be suspended.

5. Heard learned counsel for applicant.

6. Paragraph - 59 of the judgment in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra) is quoted as under :

" In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the

Act, arraigning of a company as an accused in imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh - which is a three-judge bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agrawal - does not correctly lay down the law and accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada - is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery - has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove"

7. Apex Court held that arraigning of a Company as an accused in imperative.

8 . Considering aforesaid arguments, IA for suspension of sentence is allowed. I t is hereby directed that the custodial sentence awarded to the applicant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this revision and on deposit of 30% of compensation amount, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 09.08.2024 and on other dates as may be fixed in this regard till final disposal of this revision.

9. C.C. as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

nd