{"id":215714,"date":"2007-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-02-09T05:13:36","modified_gmt":"2018-02-08T23:43:36","slug":"n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (crl.)  592 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nN. RANGACHARI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nTARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO 592           OF 2007
\n(Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 1844 of 2006)<\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tOn behalf of the Data Access (India) Limited, two
\ncheques were issued to the respondent  Bharat Sanchar
\nNigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as, “B.S.N.L.”).  The
\ncheques were dated 31.8.2004.  The cheques were duly
\npresented by the B.S.N.L. but were dishonoured for
\ninsufficiency of funds. B.S.N.L. thereupon issued requisite
\nnotices calling upon the Data Access (India) Limited to pay the
\namounts due under the cheques.  The payments not having
\nbeen made, B.S.N.L. filed a compliant under Section 138 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tIn the complaint, B.S.N.L. alleged that the cheques
\nwere issued to it by the Data Access (India) Limited in
\ndischarge of a pre-existing liability based on the business
\ntransactions between the companies.  The appellant herein
\nand respondent No. 2 in the complaint were the Directors of
\nrespondent No. 1 Company and they were in charge of and
\nresponsible for the conduct of the business of Data Access
\n(India) Limited.  The relevant statement in the complaint read:
\n“That accused No. 1 is a company incorporated
\nunder the Companies Act.  Accused Nos. 2 and
\n3 are its Directors. They are incharge of and
\nresponsible to accused No.1 for conduct of
\nbusiness of accused No. 1 Company.  They are
\njointly and severally liable for the acts of
\naccused No. 1.”\n<\/p>\n
The complaint also stated that in response to the notice issued
\nby B.S.N.L., a reply had been sent claiming that the appellant
\nwas no longer the Chairman or Director of Data Access (India)
\nLimited and accused No. 2 was not aware of the issuance of
\nthe cheques. These statements were false and by not keeping
\nsufficient funds in their account and failing to pay the cheque
\namount on the service of the notice, all the accused committed
\nan offence as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act and they were liable to be proceeded against.
\nThe complaint also asserted that all the accused were guilty of
\nthe offence in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act and were liable to be punished therefor.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe appellant herein moved the High Court under
\nSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the
\nquashing of the complaint insofar as it related to him.  The
\nappellant pleaded that he was nominated as Honorary
\nChairman without any remuneration, sitting fee etc. by the
\ninvestors and promoters of the Company of Data Access (India)
\nLimited on 24.7.2004 and he was designated as Chairman of
\nthe Company.  Being a nominated Chairman and holding an
\nHonorary post in the Company, he was never assigned with
\nany of the Company’s financial or other business activities.
\nHe was the Chairman for name sake and was never entrusted
\nwith any job or business or constituted a signing authority.
\nHe had resigned effectively on 26.8.2004 when problems
\nbetween the promoters and investors of Data Access (India)
\nLimited started developing.  The two cheques that were the
\nsubject matter of the complaint, were dated 31.8.2004, after
\nthe appellant had effectively resigned.  He had not signed
\nthose cheques.  He was not liable.  According to him, the Data
\nAccess (India) Limited had two Managing Directors at the
\nrelevant time and they were the ones who were invested with
\nsubstantial powers of management of the Company and as
\nsuch the Managing directors were involved in the day to day
\naffairs of the Company and not himself, who had only acted
\nfor a short period as Honorary Chairman.  The complaint did
\nnot contain adequate averments to justify initiation of a
\ncriminal proceeding against him and hence the complaint was
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tOn behalf of B.S.N.L., it was contended that the
\nPetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nwas not maintainable and that the questions sought to be
\nraised by the appellant were questions that had to be decided
\nat the trial. The complaint disclosed sufficient materials
\njustifying the commencement of the proceedings against Data
\nAccess (India) Limited and the other two accused including the
\nappellant.  The appellant who was the Chairman of the Data
\nAccess (India) Limited was incharge of and responsible to the
\nCompany for the conduct of its business, and no occasion had
\narisen for quashing the complaint.  The question whether a
\nperson is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the
\nbusiness of the Company, is to be adjudged during the trial on
\nthe basis of the materials to be placed on record by the
\nparties.  That could not be decided at the stage of a motion
\nunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe High Court, on going through the complaint in
\nthe context of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act, came to the conclusion that the court could
\nnot decide the pleas put forward by the appellant in dealing
\nwith a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure and that the defences sought to be put forward by
\nthe accused had to be established at the trial.  Taking the view
\nthat the complaint disclosed adequate material for proceeding
\nagainst the appellant in terms of Section 138 read with
\nSection 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court
\nrefused to accede to the prayer of the appellant and dismissed
\nthe application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure.  Challenging the said order of the High Court, this
\nappeal is filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tLearned Senior Counsel for the appellant brought to
\nour notice a number of decisions of this Court on what should
\nconstitute sufficient allegations in a complaint under Section
\n138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act when a prosecution is
\nsought against a Company and its officers, in terms of Section
\n141 of the said Act.  Learned counsel placed considerable
\nreliance on the decision of this Court in S.M.S.
\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. [(2005) 8
\nS.C.C. 89].  Therein, this Court observed:
\n“In the present case, we are concerned with
\ncriminal, liability on account of dishonour of
\ncheque. It primarily falls on the drawer
\ncompany and is extended to officers of the
\nCompany. The normal rule in the cases
\ninvolving criminal liability is against vicarious
\nliability, that is, no one is to be held criminally
\nliable for an act of another. This normal rule
\nis, however, subject to exception on account of
\nspecific provision being made in statutes
\nextending liability to others. Section 141 of the
\nAct is an instance of specific provision which
\nin case an offence under Section 138 is
\ncommitted by a Company, extends criminal
\nliability for dishonour of cheque to officers of
\nthe Company. Section 141 contains conditions
\nwhich have to be satisfied before the liability
\ncan be extended to officers of a company.\n<\/p>\n
Since the provision creates criminal liability,
\nthe conditions have to be strictly complied
\nwith. The conditions are intended to ensure
\nthat a person who is sought to be made
\nvicariously liable for an offence of which the
\nprincipal accused is the Company, had a role
\nto play in relation to the incriminating act and
\nfurther that such a person should know what
\nis attributed to him to make him liable. In
\nother words, persons who had nothing to do
\nwith the matter need not be roped in. A
\ncompany being a juristic person, all its deeds
\nand functions are result of acts of others.
\nTherefore, officers of a Company who are
\nresponsible for acts done in the name of the
\nCompany are sought to be made personally
\nliable for acts which result in criminal action
\nbeing taken against the Company. It makes
\nevery person who at the time the offence was
\ncommitted, was incharge of and was
\nresponsible to the Company for the conduct of
\nbusiness of the Company, as well as the
\nCompany, liable for the offence. The proviso to
\nthe sub-section contains an escape route for
\npersons who are able to prove that the offence
\nwas committed without their knowledge or that
\nthey had exercised all due diligence to prevent
\ncommission of the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
After referring to a number of earlier decisions, this Court
\nsummed up the legal position and laid down:
\n“It is necessary to specifically aver in a
\ncomplaint under Section 141 that at the time
\nthe offence was committed, the person accused
\nwas in charge of, and responsible for the
\nconduct of business of the company. This
\naverment is an essential requirement of
\nSection 141 and has to be made in a
\ncomplaint. Without this averment being made
\nin a complaint, the requirements of Section
\n141 cannot be said to be satisfied.”\n<\/p>\n
Dealing with the question whether a Director of a Company
\nwould be deemed to be in charge of, or responsible to, the
\nCompany for conduct of the business of the Company and,
\ntherefore, deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he proves
\nto the contrary, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“The answer to question posed in sub-\n<\/p>\n
para (b) has to be in negative. Merely
\nbeing a director of a company is not
\nsufficient to make the person liable under
\nSection 141 of the Act. A director in a
\ncompany cannot be deemed to be in
\ncharge of and responsible to the company
\nfor conduct of its business. The
\nrequirement of Section 141 is that the
\nperson sought to be made liable should
\nbe in charge of and responsible for the
\nconduct of the business of the company
\nat the relevant time. This has to be
\naverred as a fact as there is no deemed
\nliability of a director in such cases.”\n<\/p>\n
Answering the question whether even in the absence of
\naverments the signatory of the cheque or the managing
\ndirectors could be taken to be in charge of the Company and
\nresponsible to the Company for the conduct of its business
\nand could be proceeded against, the answer was as follows:
\n“The answer to question (c) has to be in
\naffirmative. The question notes that the
\nManaging Director or Joint Managing
\nDirector would be admittedly in charge of
\nthe company and responsible to the
\ncompany for conduct of its business.\n<\/p>\n
When that is so, holders of such positions
\nin a company become liable under
\nSection 141 of the Act. By virtue of the
\noffice they hold as Managing Director or
\nJoint Managing Director, these persons
\nare in charge of and responsible for the
\nconduct of business of the company.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, they get covered under Section\n<\/p>\n
141. So far as signatory of a cheque
\nwhich is dishonoured is concerned, he is
\nclearly responsible for the incriminating
\nact and will be covered under Sub-section
\n(2) of Section 141.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tIt was submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the
\nappellant that the allegations in the complaint against the
\nappellant did not contain sufficient averments to justify the
\nissue of process to the appellant and therefore the complaint
\nought to be quashed.   Learned counsel also relied heavily on
\nthe decision in Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
\n& Anr. [2007 (2) SCALE 36], wherein two learned judges of
\nthis Court held that the complaint in that case did not satisfy
\nthe requirements of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act.  Learned counsel referred us to
\nparagraphs 13 to 18 of that decision with particular reference
\nto the allegations in the complaint in that case and submitted
\nthat in the case on hand also, the complaint was along the
\nsame lines and read in the context of that decision, it must be
\nheld that no adequate material was disclosed for proceeding
\nagainst the appellant on the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tLearned counsel for B.S.N.L., on the other hand,
\nsubmitted that the complaint contained adequate averments
\njustifying the initiation of prosecution against the appellant for
\nthe offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
\nAct and the High Court was right in refusing to quash the
\ncomplaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure leaving it to the appellant to establish his defence at
\nthe trial.  Learned counsel relied on S.V. Muzumdar & Ors.
\nVs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 4 S.C.C
\n173] in support.  In his reply, learned Senior Counsel for the
\nappellant referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special
\nJudicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 S.C.C. 749] and
\nsubmitted that an application of mind was needed before the
\nissuance of process and on the averments in the complaint in
\nthis case no process could have been issued against the
\nappellant.  He therefore reiterated that the complaint was
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe Law Merchant treated negotiable instruments
\nas instruments that oiled the wheels of commerce and
\nfacilitated quick and prompt deals and transactions.  This
\ncontinues to be the position as now recognized by legislation,
\nthough possibly a change is taking place with the advent of
\ncredit cards, debit cards and so on.  It was said that negotiable
\ninstruments are merely instruments of credit, readily
\nconvertible into money and easily passable from one hand to
\nanother.  With expanding commerce, growing demand for
\nmoney could not be met by mere supply of coins and the
\ninstrument of credit took the function of money which they
\nrepresented and thus became by degrees, articles of traffic.  A
\nman dared not dishonour his own acceptance of a bill of
\nexchange, lest his credit be shaken in the commercial world.
\nThe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is understood to be an
\nenactment codifying the law on the subject.  A cheque is an
\nacknowledged bill of exchange that is readily accepted in lieu
\nof payment of money and it is negotiable.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tBy the fall in moral standards, even these
\nnegotiable instruments like cheques issued, started losing
\ntheir creditability by not being honoured on presentment.  It
\nwas found that an action in the civil court for collection of the
\nproceeds of a negotiable instrument like a cheque tarried, thus
\ndefeating the very purpose of recognizing a negotiable
\ninstrument as a speedy vehicle of commerce.  It was in that
\ncontext that Chapter VII was inserted in the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions
\nand Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act
\n66 of 1988) with effect from 1.4.1989. The said Act inserted
\nSections 138 and 142 in the Negotiable Instruments Act.   The
\nobjects and reasons for inserting the Chapter was:
\n“to enhance the acceptability of cheques in
\nsettlement of liabilities by making the drawer
\nliable for penalties in case of bouncing of
\ncheques due to insufficiency of funds in the
\naccounts or for the reason that it exceeds the
\narrangements made by the drawer, with
\nadequate safeguards to prevent harassment of
\nhonest drawers”\n<\/p>\n
While Section 138 made a person criminally liable on
\ndishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or the
\ncircumstances referred to in the Section and on the conditions
\nmentioned therein, Section 141 laid down a special provision
\nin respect of issuance of cheques by companies and
\ncommission of offences by companies under Section 138 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act. Therein, it was provided that if
\nthe person committing an offence under Section 138 of the Act
\nwas a company, every person who at the time the offence was
\ncommitted, was in charge of and was responsible to the
\ncompany for the conduct of the business of the company as
\nwell as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the
\noffence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
\npunished accordingly.  The scope of Section 141 has been
\nauthoritatively discussed in the decision in S.M.S.
\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) binding on us and there is no
\nscope for redefining it in this case.  Suffice it to say, that a
\nprosecution could be launched not only against the company
\non behalf of which the cheque issued has been dishonoured,
\nbut it could also be initiated against every person who at the
\ntime the offence was committed, was in charge of and was
\nresponsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
\nIn fact, Section 141 deems such persons to be guilty of such
\noffence, liable to be proceeded against and punished for the
\noffence, leaving it to the person concerned, to prove that the
\noffence was committed by the company without his knowledge
\nor that he has exercised due diligence to prevent the
\ncommission of the offence.  Sub-section (2) of Section 141 also
\nroped in Directors, Managers, Secretaries or other officers of
\nthe company, if it was proved that the offence was committed
\nwith their consent or connivance.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tA Company, though a legal entity, cannot act by
\nitself but can only act through its directors.  Normally, the
\nBoard of Directors act for and on behalf of the company. This
\nis clear from Section 291 of the Companies Act which provides
\nthat subject to the provisions of that Act, the Board of
\nDirectors of a Company shall be entitled to exercise all such
\npowers and to do all such acts and things as the Company is
\nauthorized to exercise and do.  Palmer described the position
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
“A company can only act by agents, and
\nusually the persons by whom it acts and by
\nwhom the business of the company is carried
\non or superintended are termed directors .
\n”\n<\/p>\n
It is further stated in Palmer that:\n<\/p>\n
“Directors are, in the eye of the law, agents of
\nthe company for which they act, and the
\ngeneral principles of the law of principal and
\nagent regulate in most respects the
\nrelationship of the company and its directors.”\n<\/p>\n
The above two passages were quoted with approval in R.K.
\nDalmia & ors. Vs. The Delhi Administration [(1963) 1 S.C.R.
\n253 at page 300].  In Guide to the Companies Act by A.
\nRamaiya (Sixteenth Edition) this position is summed up thus:
\n“All the powers of management of the affairs of
\nthe company are vested in the Board of
\nDirectors. The Board thus becomes the
\nworking organ of the company.  In their
\ndomain of power, there can be no interference,
\nnot even by shareholders.  The directors as a
\nboard are exclusively empowered to manage
\nand are exclusively responsible for that
\nmanagement.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, a person in the commercial world having a
\ntransaction with a company is entitled to presume that the
\ndirectors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the
\ncompany.  If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the
\nmemorandum or articles of the company, it is for the directors
\nto establish it at the trial.  It is in that context that Section
\n141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that when the
\noffender is a company, every person, who at the time when the
\noffence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to
\nthe company for the conduct of the business of the company,
\nshall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the
\ncompany.  It appears to us that an allegation in the complaint
\nthat the named accused are directors of the company itself
\nwould usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of
\nthe company and of their being incharge of the company.  In
\nGower and Davies’ Principles of Modern Company Law
\n(Seventh Edition), the theory behind the idea of identification
\nis traced as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“It is possible to find in the cases varying
\nformulations of the under-lying principle, and
\nthe most recent definitions suggest that the
\ncourts are prepared today to give the rule of
\nattribution based on identification a somewhat
\nbroader scope.  In the original formulation in
\nthe Lennard’s Carrying Company case Lord
\nHaldane based identification on a person “who
\nis really the directing mind and will of the
\ncorporation, the very ego and centre of the
\npersonality of the corporation”.  Recently,
\nhowever, such an approach has been
\ncastigated by the Privy Council through Lord
\nHoffmann in the Meridian Global case as a
\nmisleading “general metaphysic of companies”.
\nThe true question in each case was who as a
\nmatter of construction of the statute in
\nquestion, or presumably other rule of law, is to
\nbe regarded as the controller of the company
\nfor the purpose of the identification rule.”\n<\/p>\n
 But as has already been noticed, the decision in S.M.S.
\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) binding on us, has postulated
\nthat a director in a company cannot be deemed to be incharge
\nof and responsible to the company for the conduct of his
\nbusiness in the context of Section 141 of the Act.  Bound as
\nwe are by that decision, no further discussion on this aspect
\nappears to be warranted.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tA person normally having business or commercial
\ndealings with a company, would satisfy himself about its
\ncreditworthiness and reliability by looking at its promoters and
\nBoard of Directors and the nature and extent of its business
\nand its Memorandum or Articles of Association.  Other than
\nthat, he may not be aware of the arrangements within the
\ncompany in regard to its management, daily routine, etc.
\nTherefore, when a cheque issued to him by the company is
\ndishonoured, he is expected only to be aware generally of who
\nare incharge of the affairs of the company.  It is not reasonable
\nto expect him to know whether the person who signed the
\ncheque was instructed to do so or whether he has been
\ndeprived of his authority to do so when he actually signed the
\ncheque.  Those are matters peculiarly within the knowledge of
\nthe company and those in charge of it.  So, all that a payee of
\na cheque that is dishonoured can be expected to allege is that
\nthe persons named in the complaint are in charge of its affairs.
\nThe Directors are prima facie in that position.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tIn fact, in an earlier decision in Monaben
\nKetanbhai Shah & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2004) 7
\nS.C.C. 15], two learned judges of this Court noticed that:
\n“The laudable object of preventing bouncing of
\ncheques and sustaining the credibility of
\ncommercial transactions resulting in
\nenactment of Sections 138 and 141 has to be
\nborne in mind.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tIn the light of the ratio in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
\nLtd. (supra) what is to be looked into is whether in the
\ncomplaint, in addition to asserting that the appellant and
\nanother are the directors of the company, it is further alleged
\nthat they are incharge of and responsible to the company for
\nthe conduct of the business of the company.  We find that
\nsuch an allegation is clearly made in the complaint which we
\nhave quoted above.  Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
\nargued that in Saroj Kumar Poddar case (supra), this Court
\nhad found the complaint unsustainable only for the reason
\nthat there was no specific averment that at the time of
\nissuance of the cheque that was dishonoured, the persons
\nnamed in the complaint were incharge of the affairs of the
\ncompany.  With great respect, we see no warrant for assuming
\nsuch a position in the context of the binding ratio in S.M.S.
\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and in view of the position of
\nthe Directors in a company as explained above.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tIn Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
\n[A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1216], two learned judges of this Court
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
“For quashing an FIR (a step which is
\npermitted only in extremely rare cases) the
\ninformation in the complaint must be so bereft
\nof even the basic facts which are absolutely
\nnecessary for making out the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
In M\/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. Vs. A Chinnaswami
\n[A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2182], this Court held that a complaint
\nunder Section 138 of the Act was not liable to be quashed on
\nthe ground that the notice as contemplated by Section 138 of
\nthe Act was addressed to the Director of the Company at its
\noffice address and not to the Company itself.  The view was
\nreiterated in Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Amit J. Bhalla [A.I.R.
\n2001 S.C. 518].  These decisions indicate that too technical an
\napproach on the sufficiency of notice and the contents of the
\ncomplaint is not warranted in the context of the purpose
\nsought to be achieved by the introduction of Sections 138 and
\n141 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tIn the case on hand, reading the complaint as a
\nwhole, it is clear that the allegations in the complaint are that
\nat the time at which the two dishonoured cheques were issued
\nby the company, the appellant and another were the Directors
\nof the company and were incharge of the affairs of the
\ncompany.  It is not proper to split hairs in reading the
\ncomplaint so as to come to a conclusion that the allegations as
\na whole are not sufficient to show that at the relevant point of
\ntime the appellant and the other are not alleged to be persons
\nincharge of the affairs of the company.  Obviously, the
\ncomplaint refers to the point of time when the two cheques
\nwere issued, their presentment, dishonour and failure to pay
\nin spite of notice of dishonour.  We have no hesitation in
\noverruling the argument in that behalf by the learned Senior
\nCounsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tWe think that, in the circumstances, the High Court
\nhas rightly come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for
\nexercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure for quashing the complaint. In fact, an
\nadvertence to Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act shows that on the other elements of an
\noffence under Section 138 being satisfied, the burden is on the
\nBoard of Directors or the Officers incharge of the affairs of the
\ncompany to show that they are not liable to be convicted.  Any
\nrestriction on their power or existence of any special
\ncircumstance that makes them not liable is something that is
\npeculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to
\nestablish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the
\nrelevant time they were not incharge of the affairs of the
\ncompany.  Reading the complaint as a whole, we are satisfied
\nthat it is a case where the contentions sought to be raised by
\nthe appellant can only be dealt with after the conclusion of the
\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tWe therefore affirm the decision of the High Court
\nand dismiss this appeal.  We make it clear that the case will
\nhave to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law on the
\nbasis of the evidence that may be adduced.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.) 592 of 2007 PETITIONER: N. RANGACHARI RESPONDENT: BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/2007 BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-08T23:43:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T23:43:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4395,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\",\"name\":\"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T23:43:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-08T23:43:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T23:43:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007"},"wordCount":4395,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007","name":"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T23:43:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-rangachari-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-ltd-on-19-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}