Vs.
EmailAppeal:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Apeal:
Judges:
Date of Judgment: Feb 15, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sections 138, 142 with Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provi-sions) Act, 1985 – Section 22(1) – Prosecution of company under – Interdiction in Act of 1985 from filing suit against such company – “Suit”, if also includes criminal prosecution. Held that a criminal prosecu-tion is not a suit for recovery of money.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sections 138, 142 with Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provi-sions) Act, 1985 – Section 22(1) – Prosecution of company under – Interdiction in Act of 1985 from filing suit against such company – “Suit”, if also includes criminal prosecution. Held that a criminal prosecu-tion is not a suit for recovery of money.
Held:
Word “suit” envisaged in Section 22(1) cannot be stretched to criminal prosecutions. The suit mentioned therein is re-stricted to “recovery of money or for enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company. As the suit is clearly delineated in the provision itself, the context would not admit of any other stretching process. A criminal prosecution is neither for recovery of money nor for enforcement of any security etc. Section 138 of the NI Act is a penal provi-sion the commission of which offence entails a conviction and sentence on proof of the guilt in a duly conducted criminal proceedings. (Paras 19, 20)
If commission of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was completed before the commencement of proceedings under Sec-tion 22(1) of SICA there is no hurdle in any of the provisions of SICA against the maintainability and prosecution of a criminal complaint duly instituted under Section 142 of the NI Act. (Para 22)
JUDGEMENT:
