JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDER CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED, UNLESS HE/SHE HAS SIGNED THE CHEQUE :SC

 

The operative part of the judgement read as under :

The normal rule is, no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. This normal rule is, however, subject to exception on account of specific provision being made in statutes extending liability to others. For example, Section 141 of the N.I. Act is an instance of specific provision that in case an offence under Section 138 is committed by a company, the criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque will extend to the officers of the company.

The conditions have to be strictly complied with. The persons who had nothing to do with the matter, need not be roped in. A company being a juristic person, all its deeds and functions are the result of acts of others. Therefore, the officers of the company, who are responsible for the acts done in the name of the company, are sought to be made personally liable for the acts which result in criminal action being taken against the company. In other words, it makes every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, liable for the offence. The liability under Section 141 of the N.I. Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with the company, the principal accused being the company itself.

It was never the case of respondent No. 1 in the complaint filed before learned Magistrate that the appellant wife is being prosecuted as an association of individuals. Since, this expression has not been defined, the same has to be interpreted ejusdem generic having regard to the purpose of the principle of vicarious liability incorporated in Section 141. The terms "complaint", "person" "association of persons" "company" and "directions" have been explained by this Court in Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. Fine Tubes.

The materials culled out from the statutory notice, reply, copy of the complaint, order, issuance of process etc., clearly show that only the drawer of the cheque being responsible for the same.

Under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. In the case on hand, admittedly, the appellant is not a drawer of the cheque and she has not signed the same. A copy of the cheque was brought to our notice, though it contains name of the appellant and her husband, the fact remains that her husband alone put his signature. In addition to the same, a bare reading of the complaint as also the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant and a bare look at the cheque would show that the appellant has not signed the cheque.

A joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint holder. The said principle is an exception to Section 141 of the N.I. Act. The culpability attached to dishonour of a cheque can, in no case "except in case of Section 141 of the N.I. Act" be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an accused in any proceeding under Section 138 of the Act.

Reference : Supreme Court. Mrs. Aparna A. Shah v. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., criminal appeal no. 813 of 2013 (from the Judgement and Order dated 24.9.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1823 of 2010).

SHARE