The court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138. It held that a Branch Manager cannot escape liability for a dishonoured Demand Draft issued in his official capacity, even if he was not the account holder.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1642 OF 2006
Mr.Jagdish Mahiral Jagtap .. Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Consulting Engineering
Services (India) P.Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Atul G. Damle for the petitioner
Mr.A.B.Vagyani for respondent no.1
CORAM : J.N.PATEL, J
DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2007
P.C.:
1. Heard.
2. Mr.Jagdish Mahiral Jagtap is original
accused no.1 who has challenged the issuance of
process in a complaint filed by the respondent
company u.s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in
his capacity as a Branch Manager of respondent no.2
2
Bank at Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune, he has issued a
Demand Draft bearing no.216548 dt.6.12.04 in the
name of the Manager, Union Bank of India which was
not honoured by the respondent no.2 Bank (Original
Accused no.2) for the reason that respondent no.2
suspected foul play in issuance of the Demand Draft
which is evident from the Memorandum issued to the
respondent no.1 Complainant by the respondent no.2
(original accused no.2) and therefore, strictly
speaking, no offence has been committed by the
petitioner (Original accused no.1) as none of the
ingredients which make out an offence under section
138 of the N.I.Act are attributed in his case for
the reason that it was the responsibility of his
employer, Union Bank of India, to have honoured
commitment which were made by him on behalf of the
Bank in his capacity as Branch Manager.
4. The petitioner has sought quashing of the
proceedings by preferring a Criminal Revision
Application no.673 of 2005 in the Sessions Court at
Pune which rejected his application and, therefore,
he has moved this court by invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
3
5. Having gone through the complaint lodged by
respondent no.1 and the impugned order of the 9th
Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune passed on
16.06.06 in Criminal Revision No.33 of 2006, this
court finds that the Complainant has made out prima
facie case in the complaint and, therefore, the
learned Magistrate was justified in issuing
process. The learned Court of Sessions in Revision
has taken into consideration the plea raised by the
petitioner. The plea raised by the petitioner is
that he is personally not liable for the refusal on
the part of the bank to honour commitment as he was
not an account holder or owed any liability to
honour the D/D issued by him under his signature
which was in the capacity of Branch Manager, does
not exonerate him from the liability and therefore,
the process issued against him cannot be quashed.
6. There is no merit in the petition and the
same is dismissed.
( SHRI J.N. PATEL, J )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Branch Manager is personally liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when a Demand Draft issued in his capacity as an employee is dishonoured by the bank?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Mahiral Jagtap
M/s. Consulting Engineering Services (India) P.Ltd.
J.N. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court