NDLI: Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of U. P. & Another

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 – ss. 138 141 142 –
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – ss. 138, 141, 142 – Whether a director of a company would be liable for prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act without the company being arraigned as an accused – Held: If the complainant fails to make specific averments against the company in the complaint for the commission of an offence u/s. 138 of NI Act, the same cannot be rectified by taking recourse to general principles of criminal jurisprudence – The provisions of s.141 impose vicarious liability by deeming fiction which pre-supposes and requires the commission of the offence by the company or firm – Therefore, unless the company or firm has committed the offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-Section (1) and (2) would not be liable to be convicted on the basis of the principles of vicarious liablity. Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – ss. 138, 141, 142 – Whether a complaint u/s. 138 of NI Act would be liable to be proceeded against the director of the company without their being any averments in the complaint that the director arrayed as an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct and business of the company – Held: It is settled that vicarious liability of a person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in charge of and was also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business – Simply because a person is a director of a company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable – In the instant case, perusal of the averments made in the complaint goes to show beyond a shadow of doubt that there are no averments that respondent no. 2 (director of the company), at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1212
Petitioner	Pawan Kumar Goel
Respondent	State Of U. P. & Another
SCR	[2022] 10 S.C.R. 102
Judgement Date	2022-11-17
Case Number	1999

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of U. P. & Another

Please Log-in to view this content

N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J. Thomas

Paresh P. Rajda Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

N. Rangachari Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan

Sadanandan Bhadran Vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar

Rev. Mother Marykutty Vs. Reni C. Kottaram & Another

Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr.

Dcm Financial Services Ltd. Vs. J.n. Sareen & Anr.

N.k. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of U. P. & Another

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of U. P. & Another

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J. Thomas

Paresh P. Rajda Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

N. Rangachari Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr.snehalatha Elangovan

Sadanandan Bhadran Vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar

Rev. Mother Marykutty Vs. Reni C. Kottaram & Another

Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr.

Dcm Financial Services Ltd. Vs. J.n. Sareen & Anr.

N.k. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of U. P. & Another