Partly allowed

M/S. Jai Fire Works (P) Ltd. v. P. Shenbagarajan, S/O. N.P.P.S

Madras HC22 Jun 2016CRL MP(MD)/4977/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a cheque bounce case, the Madras High Court granted revision bail to the company representative and suspended the imprisonment sentence imposed on the company, holding that a company cannot be punished physically.

What did the court decide?

Revision bail granted to the 2nd petitioner; imprisonment sentence ordered for the company is suspended.

M/S. Jai Fire Works (P) Ltd. Vs P. Shenbagarajan, S/O. N.P.P.S — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice P.DEVADASS CRL MP(MD) No.4977 of 2016 IN CRL RC(MD) No.418 of 2016

¶5

1 M/S. JAI FIRE WORKS (P) LTD REP. THROUGH ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS P.N.STALIN, 38, V.K.M. STREET, NEAR NADAR LODGE, SIVAKASI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶6

2 MR. P.N. STALIN, DIRECTOR M/S. JAI FIRE WORKS (P) LTD., 3/77, PSR NAGAR, SIVAKASI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶7

¶8

P. SHENBAGARAJAN, S/O. N.P.P.S.PERIYANNA NADAR, 43, SIVAKASI. REP. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S.C.MOHAN, S/O. K.A.S.CHIDAMBARA NADAR, 4A/1, GANDHI NAGAR, SIVAKASI ... RESPONDENT

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased tosuspend the execution of sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur in Crl.A.No. 175 of 2004 dated 04.04.2016 in confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi in C.C.No. 211 of 2002 dated 15.10.2004 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C.

¶10

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S G.MARIMUTHU, Advocate for the petitioner and while admitting the Criminal Revision case, the court made the following order:-

¶11

The petitioners challenge the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court.

¶12

2. The revision petitioners are the accused in a cheque bouncing case in C.C.No.211 of 2002, on the file of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

¶13

3. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 138 r/w 142 N.I.Act, and each of them sentenced to 6 months S.I. Since A1 being a Company, the 2^nd petitioner was directed to undergo the sentence imposed as against A1.

¶14

4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.175 of 2004.

¶15

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A1 has also been sentenced to imprisonment. In the facts and circumstances, it will not arise.

¶16

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that there are very many legal infirmities in the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and by the Appellate Court and they are required to be revised.

¶17

7. On perusal of the Judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, it is seen that both of them have fell into error with reference to sentencing the accused persons. A1 is an inanimate body. Although it is a juristic person, it is not a natural person. It is a legal body, but not a human body. It cannot be seen, but it can be seen through eye of law, such as Memorandum of Association, Certificate of Incorporation etc. A1 has no body, no soul and no mind. So, it cannot be punished physically, but it can be punished fiscally. Unlike in Civil Law, in Criminal Law under only rare circumstances vicarious liability can be recognized, Section 149 I.P.C. Section 34 I.P.C., can be stated as illustration. Though there is vicarious criminal liability, there is no vicarious punishment. In the matter of imposition of sentence of imprisonment, principle of Law of Agency cannot be imported into Criminal Law. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have missed the rudimentary principles of criminal law.

¶18

8. In the facts and circumstances, perusing the impugned judgments and the materials on record, I am of the view that certain eminently arguable points are involved in this criminal revision. They are required to be examined in detail in the main criminal revision. It will take some time for the disposal of this criminal revision. Further, 2^nd petitioner was on bail in the Trial Court. I see prima facie case. I am inclined to grant revision bail to the 2^nd petitioner.

¶19

9. In view of the foregoings, ordered as under:

¶20

(i)Revision bail granted.

¶21

(ii)Sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court alone is suspended.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)There shall be two sureties, they and the 2^nd petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) each to the

¶23

satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

¶24

(iv) The 2^nd petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶25

(v) It is open to the 2^nd petitioner to request the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, to accept the same sureties for the connected batch cases.

¶26

sd/-

¶27

22/06/2016 / TRUE COPY /

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶29

1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTTUR

¶30

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAKASI

¶31

+1. C.C. to M/S G.MARIMUTHU Advocate SR.No.33066

¶32

ORDER

¶33

IN CRL MP(MD) No.4977 of 2016 IN

¶34

CRL RC(MD) No.418 of 2016 Date :22/06/2016

¶35

AA/SK-SKN/SAR-I/27.06.2016/3p-4c

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Jai Fire Works (P) Ltd. v. P. Shenbagarajan, S/O. N.P.P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Jai Fire Works (P) Ltd. v. P. Shenbagarajan, S/O. N.P.P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Sivaramakrishnan Vs S. Manimaran

N. Sivaramakrishnan Vs S. Manimaran

M. Venkatachalam Vs the Inspector of Police

Pounraj @ Poun Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Karuthapandi Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S. Jai Fire Works (P) Ltd. Vs P. Shenbagarajan, S/O. N.P.P.S