Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18964 = 2024(2) 169
[@ SLP [Crl.] No.7915-7922 of 2018]
Decided on: 16.02.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv., Mr. J.N.S. Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appellant was a mere employee, apart from being a lady, and was not the main accused -- Main accused was the sole proprietor, the allegations are primarily against him, who is no more -- No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the appellant -- Impugned orders are set aside.
(Para 2-6)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned orders are sought to be challenged on the premise that the appellant is a mere employee against whom there is no material available to bring it within the rigor of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further submitted that the main accused, since deceased, was the sole proprietor and, therefore, the rigor of Section 141 will not apply.
3. Despite notice being served, none appears for the respondent/complainant.
4. We are inclined to set aside the impugned orders on the sole ground that there is no sufficient material available to implicate the appellant, who was a mere employee, apart from being a lady, and was not the main accused. Admittedly, the main accused was the sole proprietor. The allegations are primarily against him. He is no more.
5. In such view of the matter, we find that no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals stand allowed.
Appeal allowed.
********