gokul M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co.(P) vs P.R.Balakrishnan on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1 .R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN RAO P PARTNER, M/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, WOODLAND JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16. 2 /S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, M KOCHI-16. 3 TATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 1 & R2 BY ADVS. R SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA C. THIS CRIMINAL APPEALHAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 2 2024:KER:82742 "CR" J U D G M E N T The complainant in CC No.238 of 2002 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, filed this appeal challenging acquittal of the accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the NI Act'), as per judgment dated 31.05.2007. 2. The complainant, M/s.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company,isaPrivateLimitedcompanyhavingitsregistered office at Chennai and a branch office at MG Road, Ernakulam. The complainant is represented by its power of attorney holder, who is the Assistant Manager of that company.Heisempoweredtoinstitutethecomplaintandto give evidence. The 2nd accused is M/s.Woodlands Jewellers and the1staccusedisitspartner.Rs.2,13,000/-wasdueto the complainant, from the accused, towards future instalments of kuri transactions, whichthe2ndaccusedhad subscribed with the complainant-company. Towards dischargeofthatdebt,the1staccusedissuedExt.P2cheque dated 14.12.2001, assuring that, it would be encashed on CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 3 2024:KER:82742 presentation before the Bank. The complainant presented that cheque for collection but it was dishonoured for the reason, 'A/c transferred to suit file. No Balance.', as per Ext.P3 memo. Complainant sent Ext.P5 registered lawyer notice to the accused, and inspiteofreceiptofnotice,they did not repay that amount, though a reply was sent with untenable contentions. Hence the complaint. 3. After taking cognizance and on appearance of the accused before the trial court, particulars of offence were read over and explained, to which, they pleaded not guilty andclaimedtobetried.Thereupon,PW1wasexaminedand Exts.P1toP10andP10(a)weremarkedfromthesideofthe complainant. On closure of complainant's evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence and according to them, they subscribed chitty conducted by the complainant, which was terminated on 12.11.1998. They paid the entire amount due, and thereafter their passbook was closed. Ext.P2 cheque was CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 4 2024:KER:82742 given by the accused, as a blank one, only as a security, when he bid the chitty. After closing the chitty,theaccused demanded back the blank cheque given as security, but it was not returned, saying that it was kept intheheadoffice at Madras. No defence evidence was adduced. 4.Onanalysingthefactsandevidence,andonhearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the complaint was not properly instituted, as PW1-Assistant Manager was not properly authorised to filethecomplaintortogiveevidence on behalf of the company. Moreover, the complainant failed to prove that, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for theappellantandlearned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, since the complainant is a Private Limited company, which is an incorporeal body, only an employee or CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 5 2024:KER:82742 representativeofthecompanycanpreferthecomplaint.The company becomes a de jure complainant and its employee or other representative representing the company in the criminalproceedingsbecomesthedefactocomplainant.Ina complaint, with regard to dishonour of a cheque issued in favour of a company, for the purpose of Section 142 of the NI Act, the company will be the complainant, and for the purpose of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, its employee,whorepresentsthecompany,willbethedefacto complainant. A company can be represented by an employee, or even by a non-employee authorised and empowered, to represent the company by a resolution or a power of attorney. 7. According to the appellant, Ext.P8 extract of the resolution empowered PW1-Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan, who was the Assistant Manager ofthecompany,tofilethecomplaintand to give evidence. Ext.P8 is the extract from the minutes,of the proceedings of the Board of Directors meeting, held on 14.09.2000, at its corporate office at Chennai, which CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 6 2024:KER:82742 authorisedtheAssistantManagerSri.A.T.K.Ajayan,todothe following acts: '( 1) Toinstitute,commence,prosecute,carryonor defend any suit or legal proceeding, (2)Tosignandverifyallplaints,writtenstatements and other pleadings, applications, affidavits, petitions or documents and produce them before any Court, (3) To appoint, engage and instruct any solicitor, Advocate or Advocates to act and plead and other wise conduct the case on behalf of the Company and to sign any Vakalathnama or other authority in this regard, (4) To give evidence on behalf of the Company in any Court of law, and (5) To do all other lawful acts,deedsandthingsin connectionwithfilingofanysuitandconducting anylegalproceedingsinanycourtoflawandto withdraw the case on behalf of the Company.' CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 7 2024:KER:82742 8. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would contendthat,Ext.P8extractoftheminutesisnotadmissible in evidence and the minutes has to beprovedbyproducing theoriginal.HewouldrelyonadecisionoftheHighCourtof Judicature at Bombay in Ashish C. Shah v. M/s. Sheth DevelopersPvt.Ltd.&Othersreportedin[CDJ2011BHC 339:2011 KHC 6506], to say that, Section 194 of the Companies Act provides that, the minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of Section 193, shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein. No provision intheCompaniesActwasbroughttothenoticeofthatcourt which provides that, certifiedcopyorextractoftheminutes would be admissible in evidence, without proof of the original. Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act provides that, secondary evidence may be given, of the existence, conditionandcontentsofthedocument,whentheoriginalis the document, of which a certified copy is permitted bythe Evidence Act or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. He would rely on another decisionofthe CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 8 2024:KER:82742 Delhi High Court in Escorts Ltd. v.SaiAutosandOthers [1991 Company Cases Volume 72 Page 483] to say that, copy of resolution was not enough and the original of the minutes book, containing the resolution reliedon,hastobe brought to the court. 9. Section 119 of the Companies Act, 2013 which correspondstoSection196oftheCompaniesAct,1956says that,thebookscontainingtheminutesoftheproceedingsof any generalmeetingofacompanyorofaresolutionpassed by postal ballot shall be kept at the registered office of the company,anditshallbeopenforinspectionbyanymember during business hours and if any member make a request, for a copy of the minutes,itshallbefurnishedwithinseven days, onpaymentofprescribedfees.So,Section119ofthe Companies Act provides for copy of the minutes, and moreover, learned counsel for the appellant would saythat, copy of every resolution shall be sent to the Registrar for recording the same within 30 days of passing the same. Moreover, as per Section 54 of the Companies Act, 1956, a CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 9 2024:KER:82742 document which requires authentication by a company may be signed by adirector,themanager,thesecretaryorother authorisedofficerofthecompany,andneednotbeunderits common seal. So, accordingtotheappellant,Ext.P8extract oftheminutes,whichcontainstheresolutionauthorisingthe Assistant Manager to file criminal or civil cases or to give evidenceetc.,signedbythedirectorofSreeGokulamChit& Finance Co.(P)Ltd.,wassufficientauthorityforPW1,tofile the complaint and to give evidence, on behalf of the company. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would point outthat,Ext.P8wasnotproducedalongwiththecomplaint, and it was produced subsequently after questioning the accusedunderSection313ofCr.P.C.Relyingonthedecision M. M. T. C. Ltd. v. Medchil Chemicals And Pharma (P) Ltd. [2002 KHC 241], learned counsel for the appellant contended that, even if there was no authority initially, still thecompanycanrectifythatdefect,atanystage.Inpara12 of that judgment, we read thus: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 10 2024:KER:82742 "It has been held that if a complaint is madeinthe name of an incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person representssuchjuristicpersoninthecourt.Itisheld that the court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as defactocomplainantto represent the former in court proceedings. It has further been held thatnoMagistrateshallinsistthat theparticularperson,whosestatementwastakenon oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant companytoseekpermissionofthe court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court. Thus, even presuming, that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaintscouldthusnothavebeenquashedonthis ground." 11. In the decision, Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia and Another[2 021 (6) CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 11 2024:KER:82742 KHC 368], Hon'ble Apex Court held that, even if there was no authority initially, the company can at any stage rectify that defect by sending a competent person. In that case, copy of the board resolution was filed along with the complaint. An affidavit was brought on record by the company, affirming the factum of authorisation in favour of the Managing Director. Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the copy of board resolution, to find thattheManagingDirector was authorised to file complaint in the Court and to attend all such affairs which maybeneededintheprocessoflegal actions. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that judgment read thus: "2 3. It is also relevant to note that a copy of the Board Resolutionwasfiledalongwiththecomplaint.Anaffidavit had been brought on record in the Trial Court by the Company, affirming to the factum of authorisation in favouroftheManagingDirector.AManageroraManaging Directorordinarilybytheverynomenclaturecanbetaken tobethepersonin-chargeoftheaffairsCompanyforits day - to - daymanagementandwithintheactivitywould certainlybecallingtheactofapproachingtheCourteither under civil law or criminal law for setting the trial in motion (Credential Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 1998(3)MahL J805).Itwouldbetootechnicalaviewto take to defeat the complaint merely because the bodyof CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 12 2024:KER:82742 the complaint does not elaborate upon the authorisation. The artificial person being the Company had to act through a person / official, which logically would include the Chairman or ManagingDirector.Onlytheexistenceof authorisation could be verified. 24.Whileweturntotheauthorisationinthepresentcase, itwasacopyand,thus,doesnothavetobesignedbythe BoardMembers,asthatwouldformapartoftheminutes of the Board meeting and not a true copy of the authorisation. We also feel that it has been wrongly concludedthattheManagingDirectorwasnotauthorised. If we peruse the authorisation in the form of a certified copyoftheResolution,itstatesthatlegalactionhastobe taken against the respondent for dishonour of cheques issued by him to discharge his liabilitiestotheCompany. To this effect, Mr. Bhupesh Rathod / Sashikant Ganekar were authorised to appoint advocates, issue notices through advocate, file complaint, verifications on oath, appointConstituentattorneytofilecomplaintintheCourt and attend all such affairs which may be needed in the process of legal actions. What more could be said?" 12. Obviously Hon'bleApexCourtacceptedcopyofthe resolutiontofindthefactumofauthorisationinfavourofthe Managing Director. 13.Inthecaseonhand,PW1-AssistantManagerofthe complainant-companyfiledthecomplaintandgaveevidence CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 13 2024:KER:82742 on behalf of the company. Ext.P8 extract of the minutes shows that, the board of directors authorised him to do so. Thefactthatonlyextractoftheminutesbookwasproduced, without producing the original, or that Ext.P8 wasproduced at a belated stage, etc., will not take away that right from him. So, he could have filed the complaint and given evidence also on behalf of the company, on the strength of the resolution by the boardofdirectors,anextractofwhich was produced as Ext.P8. 14.Learnedcounselfortherespondentswouldcontend that, Ext.P9 power of attorney was not executed or authenticated by theNotaryPublicandso,itcouldnothave been accepted to draw power for PW1, tofilethecomplaint or to give evidence. According to him, the two ingredients contained in Section 85 of the Evidence Act viz. execution before the Notary Public and the authentication by the Notary Public are very essential. The words 'executed before', and 'authenticated by', are the two conditionstobe satisfied in order to attract the presumption under Section CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 14 2024:KER:82742 85 of the Evidence Act.HewouldrelyonthedecisionBank of India v. M/s. Allibhoy Mohammed and Others reported in [AIR 2008 BOMBAY 81], to support his argument.Inparagraph 18 of that judgment, we read thus: "18. Let me turn to the Legal Provisions; namely, Section 85 of the Evidence Act which lays down that the Court shall presume due execution and authentication of power of attorney when executed before, and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Counsel or it's Vice Counsel or representative of theCentralGovernment, etc. This presumption is available in favour of the originalPowerofAttorneyholderprovidedmandateof Section 85 is duly followed." 15. In the case on hand, though the original power of attorneyisproducedandmarkedasExt.P9,itdoesnotshow that it was executed by the complainant in presence of the Notary Public, and there is no authentication by the Notary Public, that it was executed before her. So, there is some forceintheargumentputforwardbylearnedcounselforthe respondents, that Ext.P9 power of attorney cannot be accepted,forwantofproperexecutionandauthenticationas CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 15 2024:KER:82742 envisaged under Section 85 of the Evidence Act. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that,evenifthepowerofattorneyisignored,thenalso,the complaint is filed by an officer of the company and he was authorised as per board resolution dated 14.09.2000, the extract of which was marked as Ext.P8. So, this Court is of the view that, though Ext.P9 power of attorney was not liable to be accepted, being the officer of the company, authorised by board resolution dated 14.09.2000, PW1 was empowered to file the complaint and to give evidence. 17.Learnedcounselfortheappellantwouldsaythat,if the accused was disputing the authority of the complainant tofilethecomplaintortogiveevidence,itwasopenforhim to dispute andestablishthesameduringthecourseoftrial. Hon'ble Apex Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. and Another [2022 (2) KHC 157:2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1043 (SC)] made that position clear, by holding that, when thecomplainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 16 2024:KER:82742 company. Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and to issue process. If at all there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized, or if it is to bedemonstratedthatapersonwho filed the complaint has noknowledgeofthetransactionand assuchthatpersoncouldnothaveinstitutedandprosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute thepositionandestablishthesameduringthecourseofthe trial. 18. Though the respondents were disputing the authority of PW1, vide Ext.P8 extract of the resolution as wellasExt.P9powerofattorney,theydidnottakeanysteps to establish that position, during trial.So,thefindingofthe trialcourt,thatPW1wasnotauthorizedtofilethecomplaint and to give evidence on the basis of Ext.P8 extract of the resolution, is liable to be set aside. 19.Comingtothefactsofthecase,learnedcounselfor theappellantwouldsubmitthat,therespondentssubscribed CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 17 2024:KER:82742 seven kuries of Rs.5,00,000/- each, with the appellant company, andtheyauctionedthatkurion14.02.1997.They defaulted payment of future instalments, and towards discharge of that liability, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 14.12.2001 for an amount of Rs.2,13,000/-. When that cheque was presented before Bank, it was returned dishonoured for the reason 'A/c transferred to suit file. No balance.' The respondents are not disputing the signatureinExt.P2chequeortheissuanceofthatchequeto the appellant. All statutory formalities to bring home an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act was complied with. Moreover, the presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act will come to the aid of the appellant to show that, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. So, according totheappellant,learnedtrialcourtwentwrongin acquitting the accused. 20. The respondents would contend that, when they auctioned the kuri with the appellant, as a security for the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 18 2024:KER:82742 balance instalments, Ext.P2 cheque was given as a blank signed cheque, and even after they paid the future instalments fully, and closed the kuri, the blank cheque entrustedwiththeappellantwasnotreturned. Onlytosee, whether they could extract some more money from the respondents, they filed a false complaint, misusing that blank cheque. 21.RelyingonthedecisionoftheHon'bleApexCourtin Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar[(2019) 4 SCC 197], learned counsel for the appellant would argue that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntary signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumptionunderSection139oftheNIAct,intheabsence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. Paragraphs 33 to 36 of that judgment read thus: "33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payeeremainsliableunlessheadducesevidencetorebut CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 19 2024:KER:82742 the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34.Ifasignedblankchequeisvoluntarilypresentedtoa payee,towardssomepayment,thepayeemayfillupthe amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accusedtoprovethatthechequewasnotindischargeof a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 35.Itisnotthecaseoftherespondent-accusedthathe either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor isitthecaseoftherespondent- accused thattheunfilledsignedchequehadbeenstolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payeeofachequeanditsdrawer,wouldnotdisentitlethe payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct,intheabsenceof evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion.The second question is also answered in the negative. 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct,intheabsenceofany cogent evidence to showthatthechequewasnotissued in discharge of a debt." CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 20 2024:KER:82742 22. The respondents are not disputing issuance of Ext.P2chequetotheappellant,thoughaccordingtothem,it wasissuedasablanksignedcheque.Theyarenotdisputing the fact that they auctioned the kuri which they subscribed with the appellant and future instalments were to be paid, evenafterauctioningthekuri.Obviously,Ext.P2chequewas issuednotunderanythreatorcoercion,andevenaccording totherespondents,itwasissuedasasecurityforthefuture instalmentstobepaidinthekuri,whichtheyhadauctioned. In Moideen v. Johny [2006 KHC 1055], this Court held that, even if a blank cheque was issued as a security, the person in possession of the blank cheque, can enter the amount of the liability and present it to the bank. When a blank cheque is issued by one to another, it gives an authority on the person, to whom itisissued,tofillitupat the appropriate stage, with the necessaryentitiesregarding the liability, and to present it to the bank. In the event of dishonour of that cheque, the accused cannot be absolved from his liability. CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 21 2024:KER:82742 23.Anothercontentiontakenupbylearnedcounselfor the respondents is that, the appellant did not produce the account books of the chitty to show that Rs.2,13,000/-was due from them. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, production of account books etc. may be relevant in a civil court, but as far as a criminalcaseunder Section138oftheNIActisconcerned,thereispresumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, and so the burden is upon the respondentstorebutthatpresumption.Shewould rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex CourtinChandelD. K.v.M/s.WockhardtLtd.andAnother[2020KHC6204] which says that production of the account books/cash book may be relevant in a civil court; but may not be so, in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of NI Act, because of the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. 24. The respondents are not disputing the fact that they had subscribed kuries with the appellant company. Ext.D1 passbook shows that the kuri commenced on 12.11.1996, and it was terminated on 12.11.1998. In the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 22 2024:KER:82742 first page of that passbook, a 'PAID' seal is found with the date14.02.1997.Accordingtotheappellant,itwasthedate onwhichthatkuriwasauctionedbytherespondents. Inthe 10th page of that passbook,thereisanendorsementinred ink, as 'c losed 14.12.1998'. So according to the respondents, the endorsement 'c losed 14.12.1998' andthe 'PAID' seal on the first pageofthepassbook,willshowthat he had paid the entire amount due under that kuri and so, no amount was due, so as to issue Ext.P2 cheque. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that,ifthekuriwasclosedon14.12.1998,thepassbookwill show the seal 'c losed', just like the 'PAID' seal in the first page. Since the kuri was auctioned by the respondents, definitely there would have been future instalments, to be paid monthly, till the termination of that kuri. When the respondents are alleging discharge of the entire kuri instalments duetotheappellant,itistheirburden,toprove itwithcogentevidence.Theycouldhaveverywellcalledfor the Registers pertaining to the kuri to show that the entire CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 23 2024:KER:82742 amount has been paid by them. Learned counsel for the appellant would say that, since Ext.D1 passbook was in the custody of the respondents, they themselves might have made the red ink entry 'c losed 14.12.1998'. Since Ext.D1 passbook was with the respondents, the manipulation as alleged by the appellant cannot be ruled out. Learned trial court seems to have been carried away by the 'PAID' seal seen on the first page of Ext.D1 passbook to find that, the entire dues of the kuri was paid off by the respondents. Obviously, that 'PAID' seal was regarding payment by the company, when the kuri was auctioned by the respondents. 26.Learnedcounselfortherespondentswouldcontend that, on receipt of Ext.P5 lawyer notice, they sent Ext.D2 reply notice disowning theliabilityanddisputingissuanceof the cheque. But the appellant produced Ext.P10 notice sent by the respondents on receipt of Ext.P5 notice. In Ext.P10 notice, it was stated that the respondents were facing financial difficulties and they were making every effort to raise funds to settle the account. But, learned counsel for CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 24 2024:KER:82742 the respondents would say that, they never sent Ext.P10 replynoticetotheappellant.ButExt.P10(a)postalcoverwill show that, it was sent by the respondents to Adv.Sri.K.S.Babu, who sent Ext.P5 notice. Ext.D2 notice as well as Ext.P10noticeareonthesamedayi.e.10.01.2002. But Ext.D2 was addressed to the appellant directly. The postalreceiptoracknowledgementcardofExt.D2noticewas not produced by the respondents. Since Ext.P5 notice was sent by an advocate, normally the reply also should have been given to that advocate. Ext.P10 notice along with Ext.P10(a) cover seem to be more reliable. On going through Ext.P10 notice, it could be seen that, the respondents were admitting their liability to certain extent, towards the balance amount due on prized chits. 27.Advertingtotheaforesaidfactsandcircumstances, this Court is of the view that, the trial court went wrong in acquitting the accused. So,theimpugnedjudgmentisliable to be set aside. There is evidence to show that Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 25 2024:KER:82742 enforceable debt, and that cheque was dishonoured for the reason'A/ctransferredtosuitfile.Nobalance.'Theappellant had complied with all the statutory formalities in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.ThecomplainantwasauthorizedasperExt.P8extractof the resolution, to file the complaint and to give evidence. The respondents failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the appellant, under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. So, respondents 1 and 2 are found guiltyunder Section 138 of the NI Act. 28. As per Section 141 of the NI Act, if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Section 141(2) of the NI Act reads thus: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 26 2024:KER:82742 "141. Offences by companies. -- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinsub-section(1), where any offence under thisAct,hasbeencommittedby a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation: For the purposes, of this section,-- (a) "company"meansanybodycorporateandincludesa firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 29. In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent is a partnership firm and the 1st res Full Article
gokul Digital creator Gokul Raj’s takes on everyday life appeal to all ages with relatable Kerala sketches By www.thehindu.com Published On :: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 14:16:58 +0530 The former radio and television jockey usually does a solo act that looks at the funny side of domestic life Full Article Life & Style
gokul Gokul Anandayuvaraj is the Unique Entrepreneur with a Progressive Mindset and Mission By Published On :: Sun, 10 May 2020 11:13:57 +0530 Gokul Anandayuvaraj, the founder and CEO of VINVELI, is one such entrepreneur and tech innovator. From his consistent hard work and contribution, he has been inspiring millions of engineers and budding entrepreneurs all over the world, especially in the field of aerospace. Full Article
gokul Gokulam Kerala women's football coach Priya PV joins helpline centre By www.mid-day.com Published On :: 16 Apr 2020 04:19:08 GMT Football coach Priya PV, who guided Gokulam Kerala FC to the Indian Women's League title, is currently assisting relief operations in the Coronavirus-caused lockdown through a helpline centre which provides medicine and food to the needy. Priya has joined the same helpline centre in Kannur, where India and Jamshedpur FC attacker CK Vineeth has been working. The biggest challenge for them at the centre is to make sure that all requests for medicines are met. "We have been getting around 150-200 calls every day. Most of these are for medicines. We make sure that whenever we get any requests for medicines, they are duly sent to those in need," said Priya, who had earlier coached India U-19. "No requests for medicines are ever turned down. We try to do the same for grocery and food items as well. But sometimes we have to keep in mind that we have to distribute such items among a lot of people. So we try to divide it for everyone to get some amount," she added. The call centre also attends to requests from students and other professionals from around the area. Kannur being the headquarters of the helpline centre, Priya and Vineeth also get a number of calls from the nearby districts, where tertiary networks have been set up to help the people. "We are working from the headquarters in Kannur. There are tertiary helpline centres in different districts as well who have their own network of pharmacists, grocers, and delivery executives," said Priya, who won the IWL 2019-20 title as head coach of local club Gokulam Kerala FC. "My ancestral home is a bit far from the call centre, so I am staying at a place that is close by. Initially, I wanted to go to my ancestral home every weekend, in order to make sure that my parents have all they need during the lockdown," she said. news and updates here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates. Mid-Day is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@middayinfomedialtd) and stay updated with the latest news This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever Full Article
gokul Indians Should Raise Bar and Compete With Foreigners: Gokulam Kerala FC Owner By www.news18.com Published On :: Tue, 5 May 2020 04:40:39 +0530 Gokulam Kerala FC owner V.C. Praveen wants Indian players to compete with the best foreign players who ply their trade in the country Full Article
gokul 25,000 fans turn up to support late Dhanarajan’s family in Gokulam-Churchill clash By indianexpress.com Published On :: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:47:29 +0000 Full Article Sports Tennis
