Module: General Practice
Q181: Scenario: A company issues a cheque signed by its Director, Mr. Sharma. The cheque is dishonoured due to "Insufficient Funds." The complainant files a case under Section 138 against Mr. Sharma (Director) without making the Company an accused in the complaint. Based on the binding Supreme Court precedent (Aneeta Hada case), is the complaint maintainable against Mr. Sharma?
✅ Correct Answer: C
This question tests the application of Section 141 (Offences by Companies). In the landmark judgment Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (2012), which remains binding in 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the Company is the Principal Offender.
The liability of Directors is "Vicarious" (derivative). One cannot be vicariously liable if the principal offender is not charged.
Therefore, arraigning the Company as an accused is a mandatory condition precedent.
A complaint against the Director alone is legally defective and not maintainable.
The liability of Directors is "Vicarious" (derivative). One cannot be vicariously liable if the principal offender is not charged.
Therefore, arraigning the Company as an accused is a mandatory condition precedent.
A complaint against the Director alone is legally defective and not maintainable.