| Case Name | Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra |
| Citation | AIRONLINE 2021 SC 124 |
| Date of Judgement | 8 March, 2021 |
| Court | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| Respondent | Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Anr. |
| Bench | M. R. Shah, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud |
Introduction
In the case that follows, the question of whether or not a person who owes money to someone jointly with someone else can be found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is raised. The case also addresses whether the terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 are applicable.
In this instance, the lawyer who filed the first complaint brought up a professional cost for the legal services he provided to defend a couple in court. The husband’s check was returned unpaid. The attorney filed a complaint for the offence covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the husband and wife. Since the initial complainant represented both accused, the complainant claimed that both accused shared responsibility for paying the professional charge.
The accused wife filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the High Court in an attempt to have the criminal case against her dismissed, mostly because there was no joint bank account and she was not a signatory to the dishonoured check. The High Court rejected this petition. The accused parties filed a petition against the High Court’s ruling because they felt wronged and unsatisfied with it.
Facts of the Case
The first complainant in this instance, a lawyer, filed a formal bill for the work he did to defend a couple in court. The spouse’s cheque was returned due to nonpayment. The attorney filed a lawsuit alleging that both the husband and wife had violated Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original complainant represented both defendants, thus in the complainant’s opinion, they were jointly accountable for the professional bill.
The accused wife requested the dismissal of the criminal case against her in a writ petition filed with the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition cited the accused wife’s non-signatory status on the dishonoured cheque and the absence of a joint bank account.
The petition was denied by the High Court. Feeling betrayed and angry, the accused parties filed a petition against the High Court’s decision.
Issues Raised
- Whether or not the accused is subject to the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
- Whether or whether someone who owes money to someone jointly with someone else may be found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Contentions of the Appellant
1. The appellant was not a signatory to the dishonoured check, nor was it drawn from the appellant’s bank account. According to the appellant’s attorney, the dishonoured check was issued by her husband, not the appellant, and the account in question was not joint. Consequently, the appellant could not be prosecuted for the offence covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. He further asserted that the High Court ought to have dropped the criminal charge against the appellant since the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not fulfilled.
3. The appellant’s attorney further informed the court that even Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be applicable in this matter because the check was written by a private individual.
Contentions of the Respondent
1. In response to the appellant’s argument, the complainant’s attorney countered that, since the complainant was the one representing both accused, Section 141 of the Act would apply because it was their joint liability to pay the debt for the professional bill, as the High Court had correctly noted and held.
2. The complainant’s attorney further contended that the High Court acted appropriately in declining to quash the criminal complaint and dismissing the appellant’s petition in the High Court when the Trial Court issued the summons against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, having determined that a prima facie case had been established.
3. The complainant’s attorney goes on to say that the High Court made the right decision in declining to suppress the complaint since the check was given to release the accused and her spouse from any legal obligations.
Judgement
The court decided against the plaintiff in this case. Section 138 of the Act makes no mention of joint liability. Even in cases where there is joint accountability, a person other than the one who has drawn the check on an account owned by him is not subject to prosecution for the crime under Section 138 of the crime. Even though he signed the check and the bank account was managed jointly, an individual cannot be charged even though they were jointly obligated to pay the debt. Because the obligation is an individual liability and cannot be alleged to be imposed onto another party, the court determined that there was no issue with applying Section 141 of the Act against the appellant.
Following hearing both sides of the case, the appellants were declared winners by the court. The court dismissed the complainant’s claim that the appellant’s case could be maintained as the check was written to release the accused parties from their legal obligations.
Analysis
The appellant was not the signatory to the dishonoured cheque, nor was it drawn from the appellant’s bank account; as a result, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the offence covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, according to the appellant’s counsel. The dishonoured cheque was issued by her husband, not the appellant, and the account in question was not a joint account. He further contended that the High Court ought to have dismissed the criminal charge against the appellant since the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not met.
The appellant’s attorney also argued in court that since the check was written by a private party, even Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not apply in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant’s attorney denied the appellant’s argument, arguing that since the complainant represented both accused parties, the High Court correctly noted and held that Section 141 of the Act would apply and that the accused’s joint liability for the debt toward the professional bill was due.
The complainant’s attorney further argued that the High Court properly declined to revoke the criminal complaint and dismissed the appellant’s petition in the High Court when the Trial Court issued a summons against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after concluding that a prima facie case had been made out. The complainant’s attorney also argues that the High Court correctly declined to dismiss the case because the check was written to relieve both accused parties of their legal obligations at the time it was written and her husband issued it thereafter.
After considering both arguments, the court decided in the appellants’ favour. The complainant claimed that because the check was made out to relieve both accused parties of their legal obligations, the complaint against the appellant may be maintained. However, the court dismissed this argument. In regards to the applicability of Section 141 of the Act, the court determined that there was no possibility of using Section 141 of the Act against the appellant because the liability is personal and cannot be attributed to an offence committed by a corporation, a corporate entity, or any other group of people. The court noted that the applicant is neither a partner nor a director of any company that has issued the
Conclusion
The primary question raised by this case is whether or not someone who owes money to another jointly with someone else may be found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this particular case, the court issued a negative ruling. The Act’s Section 138 makes no mention of joint culpability. A person other than the one who has drawn the check on an account that he maintains is not prosecutable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, even in the situation of joint liability. Although there was a chance that someone would have been held jointly responsible for the loan,
Regarding the applicability of Section 141 of the Act, which addresses offences committed by corporations under Section 138, the court determined that there was no way to use Section 141 of the Act against the appellant because the offence is one that was committed by the individual and not by a corporation, corporate entity, firm, or other group of people. The appellant is not a partner nor a director of any company that issued the check, the court said.
References:
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/alka-khandu-avhad-v-amar-syamprasad-mishra-anr-5058.asp
https://aishwaryasandeep.in/alka-khandu-avhad-vs-amar-syamprasad-mishra/
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
