Introduction

The law relating to dishonour of cheques occupies a significant place in commercial jurisprudence. Sections 138 to 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") were introduced to enhance the credibility of negotiable instruments and ensure the smooth functioning of commercial transactions. Among the numerous procedural and substantive requirements under the NI Act, one recurring question before courts has been: Who should be arrayed as an accused in a complaint under Section 138?

The answer is not always straightforward. While the drawer of the cheque is generally the principal accused, complexities arise when the cheque is issued on behalf of a company, partnership firm, trust, or other juristic entity. Over the years, the Supreme Court has developed a robust jurisprudence on the concept of "necessary parties" in cheque dishonour prosecutions.

This article examines the legal position governing necessary parties under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act and analyses the judicial principles applicable to different categories of cheque drawers.

The Basic Principle: The Drawer is the Primary Accused

Section 138 of the NI Act criminalises the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or similar reasons. The offence is committed by the "drawer" of the cheque. Therefore, the person whose account is maintained with the bank and from whose account the cheque is issued is ordinarily the primary accused.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that criminal liability under Section 138 is attached to the drawer of the cheque because the dishonoured instrument originates from that person's account. Consequently, identifying the drawer is the first step in determining who must be impleaded in a cheque bounce complaint.

Cheques Issued by Individuals

Where the cheque is issued by an individual in his or her personal capacity, the position is uncomplicated.

The individual drawer is both the principal and necessary party. No other person is required to be impleaded unless special circumstances exist. Since Section 141, which deals with vicarious liability, applies only to companies and similar entities, it has no application where the drawer is an individual.

Accordingly, a complaint under Section 138 against an individual drawer is maintainable by impleading only that individual.

Cheques Issued by Companies: The Requirement of Arraigning the Company

The legal position becomes significantly more complex when a cheque is issued on behalf of a company.

Section 141 of the NI Act creates vicarious criminal liability by extending responsibility to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time the offence was committed. However, such liability is derivative in nature and arises only because the company itself is liable.

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. settled the controversy by holding that arraigning the company as an accused is mandatory. Directors, Managing Directors, authorised signatories, or other officers cannot be prosecuted in isolation when the cheque was issued on behalf of the company.

The Court reasoned that vicarious liability under criminal law is an exception to the general rule that liability is personal. Since Section 141 specifically creates such an exception, its conditions must be strictly complied with. Therefore:

1. The company must be made an accused.

2. The directors or officers sought to be prosecuted must also be impleaded.

3. The complaint must contain specific averments showing that such persons were responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Failure to implead the company generally renders the prosecution against the directors unsustainable.

Who Among the Company's Officers Can Be Prosecuted?

Not every director automatically becomes liable.

The complainant must establish that the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. However, certain categories of persons attract presumptive liability, such as:

• Managing Directors;

• Joint Managing Directors;

• Signatories to the dishonoured cheque;

• Officers who actively controlled the affairs of the company.

A mere designation as a director, without more, is insufficient.

Partnership Firms: Necessary Parties and Vicarious Liability

Partnership firms occupy an intermediate position between individuals and corporations.

Section 141 expressly includes a "firm" within the expression "company" for the purpose of fixing vicarious liability. Therefore, the principles applicable to companies broadly apply to partnership firms as well.

Traditionally, courts held that both the partnership firm and the concerned partners should be impleaded. Since the firm's liability forms the foundation for the partners' vicarious liability, the firm itself ordinarily needs to be arraigned as an accused.

Recent judicial pronouncements have clarified that a complaint against partners may remain maintainable in certain circumstances; however, as a matter of sound legal practice and to avoid technical objections, the partnership firm should also be made an accused.

Accordingly, where a cheque is issued on behalf of a partnership firm:

• The firm should ordinarily be impleaded as the principal accused.

• The partners who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business should also be arrayed as accused.

• Specific allegations regarding their role in the firm's affairs should be included in the complaint.

Trusts and Their Authorized Signatories

Trusts present a distinct legal issue because they do not possess the same corporate personality as companies.

Unlike a company, a trust functions through its trustees and authorised representatives. Consequently, courts have recognised that where a cheque is issued by an authorised signatory of a trust, the signatory may be prosecuted even if the trust itself is not separately impleaded.

The Supreme Court's decision in Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal highlighted the distinction between corporate entities and trusts. The Court observed that trustees act on behalf of the trust and may incur liability arising from the dishonoured cheque issued under their authority.

Therefore, in appropriate cases:

• The authorised signatory may be prosecuted directly.

• The absence of the trust as a separate accused may not necessarily defeat the prosecution.

• The specific facts of the trust structure and the authority of the signatory become crucial considerations.

The Importance of Proper Impleadment

Improper impleadment remains one of the most common grounds for challenging cheque bounce prosecutions.

A complaint may fail if:

• The company is not arraigned despite the cheque being issued on its behalf;

• Necessary averments regarding the role of directors or partners are absent;

• Persons with no operational control over the business are mechanically implicated.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that criminal liability under Section 141 cannot be imposed casually. Courts must balance the objective of ensuring commercial accountability with the principle that criminal liability should not be extended beyond those genuinely responsible for the conduct of the business.

Conclusion

Determining the necessary parties in a cheque dishonour prosecution is not merely a procedural formality; it is a jurisdictional requirement that directly affects the maintainability of the complaint.

The governing principles may be summarised as follows:

• For an individual drawer, the individual alone is the necessary party.

• For a company, the company must be arraigned as an accused, along with the directors or officers responsible for its affairs.

• For a partnership firm, the firm and the responsible partners should ordinarily be impleaded.

• For trusts, the authorised signatory may, depending upon the facts, be prosecuted even without separately arraying the trust.

The jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court demonstrates a consistent effort to ensure that criminal liability under the NI Act is imposed upon the correct persons while preventing misuse of the law through indiscriminate prosecution. For litigants and practitioners alike, careful identification of the necessary parties remains the foundation of a legally sustainable complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Bibliography

Statutes

1. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The Companies Act, 2013.

Cases

1. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661.

2. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 89.

3. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330.

4. P.J. Agro Tech Ltd. v. Water Base Ltd., (2010) 12 SCC 146.

5. Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 436.

6. Dayle De'Souza v. Government of India, (2021) 7 SCC 678.

7. Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781.

Books

1. Avtar Singh, Negotiable Instruments, Eastern Book Company, Latest Edition.

2. Bhashyam & Adiga, The Negotiable Instruments Act, Bharat Law House, Latest Edition.

3. M.S. Parthasarathy, Cheques and Dishonour of Cheques, LexisNexis, Latest Edition.

Articles and Online Resources

1. Vinod Kothari, “Impleadment of Company Necessary Element under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act.”

2. IBC Laws, “Complaint under Section 138 NI Act against Partners without Impleading Partnership Firm.”

3. Supreme Court Observer, “Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal – Case Analysis.”

4. Judicial Academy Assam, “Dishonour of Cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act.”

5. LiveLaw, reports and updates on Section 138 and Section 141 NI Act jurisprudence.

Share this News