Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nCalcutta High Court (Appellete Side)\nSignet Media Services Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Unknown on 6 December, 2022                                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n06-12-2022                         Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction\n   Subha\nItem no.23                                  CRR 776 of 2021\n  Ct no.34\n\n                In the matter of : Signet Media Services Pvt. Ltd. & ors.   .....petitioners.\n\n\n               In Re : An application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the\n             Code of Criminal Procedure.\n\n\n                            Mr. Subhabrata Datta\n                            Ms. Debjani Roy Choudhuri\n                            Mr. Aranya Saha\n                                                  ......for the petitioners.\n\n                            Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate\n                            Mr. Dipanjan Dutt\n                            Mr. Tanmoy Roy\n                                               ....for the opposite party.\n\n\n                        The present revisional application has been preferred\n\n             challenging the order dated February 21, 2017 passed by the learned\n\n             Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta as also the subsequent orders\n\n             passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta in\n\n             connection with Complaint Case No. 17228 of 2017 under Sections\n\n             138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.\n\n                       Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners\n\n             submits that the present case was initiated in utter disregard of the\n\n             provisions of law. To that effect, learned advocate submits that the\n\n             constituted attorney who filed the complaint on behalf of M/s. Asha\n\n             Communication was not empowered to continue with the case in view\n\n             of the fact that the proprietress of M/s. Asha Communication namely,\n\n             Smt. Mahua Lahiri expired during the pendency of the proceedings.\n                                     2\n\n\n\n\n         Learned advocate submits that the factum of death of the\n\nproprietress was not informed to the court and orders were passed by\n\nthe learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of the issuance of\n\nsummons/warrant of arrest and there was a progress in the\n\nproceedings before the learned trial court.\n\n       Learned advocate submits that because of the warrant of\n\narrest, one of the accused was arrested and was detained for a night\n\nand subsequently he was produced before the court.\n\n         Additionally, it has been submitted that if the allegations\n\nmade in the petition of complaint is accepted in its entirety, the same\n\nalso do not make out a case for the petitioners to face trial in a court of\n\nlaw.\n\n         Mr. Ganguly, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of\n\nthe complainant submitted that at the relevant time when the\n\ncomplaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,\n\nCalcutta, the proprietress, Mahua Lahiri was alive.\n\n         It is a fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, she\n\nhas expired. It has been stressed that mere death of the complainant\n\ndo not automatically terminate the proceedings.\n\n        To that effect, learned advocate has drawn the attention of this\n\ncourt to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal\n\nProcedure as well as Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n\n         Learned advocate has relied upon the judgement of the\n\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jimmy Jahangir Madan -Vs. -\n\nBolly Cariyappa Hindley (Dead) By LRs. Reported in (2004) 12 SCC\n\n509; Chand Devi Daga & Ors. -Vs.- Manju K. Humatani & Ors.\n                                     3\n\n\n\n\nReported in (2018) 1 SCC 71 and Balasaheb K. Thackeray & Anr. -vs-\n\nVenkat alias Babru, S/o Wamanrao reported in (2006) 5 SCC 530.\n\n      Both   the    learned   advocates   relied   on   paragraph   13   of\n\nChand Devi Daga & Anr. (supra) which is set out as follows:-\n\n      "13. This Court had the occasion to consider Sections 256 and\n      302    in Balasaheb      K.   Thackeray v. Venkat [Balasaheb       K.\n      Thackeray v. Venkat, (2006) 5 SCC 530 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 630]\n      . In the above case complaint was filed under Section 500 read\n      with Section 34 IPC. A petition was filed under Section 482 of the\n      1973 Code against the order of issue of process in the High Court\n      which was dismissed. SLP was filed in this Court in which notice\n      was issued [Balasaheb K. Thackeray v. Venkat, SLP (Cri) No.\n      4367 of 2003, order dated 31-10-2003 (SC), wherein it was\n      directed:"Issue notice. Mr Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned\n      counsel takes notice on behalf of Respondent 1 and seeks two\n      weeks' time for filing counter-affidavit. Time prayed for is\n      granted. One week's time thereafter is granted for rejoinder-\n      affidavit. Stay of further proceedings."] and during the pendency\n      of the appeal it was noted that the complainant had died. It was\n      contended that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the\n      complainant is dead. This Court in the above context referred to\n      Sections 256 and 302. This Court repelled the argument of the\n      appellant that complaint be dismissed on the ground that\n      complainant had died. Following was held in paras 3 to 6: (SCC\n      pp. 531-32)\n      "3. The learned counsel for the appellants with reference to\n      Section 256 of the Code submitted that the complaint was to be\n      dismissed on the ground of the death of the complainant. As\n      noted above the learned counsel for Respondent 1's legal heirs\n      submitted that the legal heirs of the complainant shall file an\n      application for permission to prosecute and, therefore, the\n      complaint still survives consideration.\n      4. At this juncture it is relevant to take note of what has been\n                             4\n\n\n\n\nstated by this Court earlier on the principles applicable.\nIn Ashwin     Nanubhai   Vyas v. State   of   Maharashtra [Ashwin\nNanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 983 : 1967\nCri LJ 943] with reference to Section 495 of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Code") it was\nheld that the Magistrate had the power to permit a relative to act\nas the complainant to continue the prosecution. In Jimmy\nJahangir Madan v. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley [Jimmy Jahangir\nMadan v. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley, (2004) 12 SCC 509 : 2004\nSCC (Cri) Supp 317] after referring to Ashwin case [Ashwin\nNanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 983 : 1967\nCri LJ 943] it was held that heir of the complainant can be\nallowed to file a petition under Section 302 of the Code to\ncontinue the prosecution.\n5. Section 302 of the Code reads as under:\n'302. Permission to conduct prosecution.--(1) Any Magistrate\ninquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be\nconducted by any person other than a police officer below the\nrank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate General\nor Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant\nPublic Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such\npermission:\nProvided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the\nprosecution if he has taken part in the investigation into the\noffence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.\n(2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally\nor by a pleader.'\n6. To bring in application of Section 302 of the Code, permission\nto conduct the prosecution has to be obtained from the Magistrate\ninquiring into or trying a case. The Magistrate is empowered to\npermit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than\na police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person other\nthan the Advocate General or the Government Advocate or a\nPublic Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be entitled\n                                    5\n\n\n\n\n       to do so without such permission."\n\n       While the learned advocate for the complainant/opposite party\n\nemphasized that the substitution in a complaint case is possible, the\n\nlearned advocate for the petitioners on the other hand contradicted\n\nsuch submission and stressed that the issue is not whether the\n\naccused company/complainant cannot be substituted but the issue\n\nremains as to whether the same being not informed to the trial court\n\nand obtaining orders are justified in the circumstances when there is\n\nno complainant in this case.\n\n          I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned\n\nAdvocate for the petitioners and assessed the records of the case. From\n\nthe records it transpires that till date the stage of examination under\n\nSection 251 of the Cr.P.C. has not been reached. The complainant\n\nMahua Lahiri was alive when the cognizance of the offence was taken\n\nand the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process/summons\n\nagainst the accused persons. Once the learned Magistrate was pleased\n\nto issue summons in respect of the accused persons the rest of the\n\nproceedings were restricted between the Court and the accused\n\npersons as it was duty of the Court to compel the appearance of an\n\naccused to appear before the Court of law.\n\n       On a consideration of the issue involved, I am of the opinion\n\nthat the basic foundation is the definition of the complaint under\n\nSection 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in cases under the\n\nNegotiable Instruments Act, it is the holder in due course of the\n\ncheque who has got the right to file the case.\n\n          The settled principles of law empowers the complainant to\n                                     6\n\n\n\n\nfile a substitution petition at any stage of the case.\n\n         Accordingly on this issue the proceedings cannot be quashed.\n\n         So far as the other issues are concerned, relating to the\n\nprovisions of Section 141 of the N. I. Act., records reflect that the\n\nallegations are that the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 happen to be the\n\nauthorized signatories and Director of the accused company.\n\n        There is nothing on record to show that the accused no. 3 was\n\nnot a director at the relevant period of time or an authorized signatory\n\nof the accused company.\n\n         The learned advocate for the petitioners relied upon the\n\njudgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to vicarious liability\n\nas   settled   in   Sabitha   Ramamurthy       and   another   vs   .R.B.S\n\nChannabasavaradhya reported in (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 581\n\nand Mannalal Chamaria & Anr.- vs. State of West Bengal & anr.\n\nReported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 751.\n\n          In the petition of complaint in paragraph 2 it has been\n\naverred that the accused nos. 2 and 3 are the authorized signatories,\n\ndirectors of the accused no. 1 and are running their business at 104,\n\nBidhannagar Road, Kolkata - 700067 along with other allegations.\n\n        This particular allegation/averment made in the petition of\n\ncomplaint distinguishes the distinctive role, which the accused nos. 2\n\nand 3 are supposed to exercise, being Director of the company.         As\n\nsuch, the allegations do suffice the necessary requirements for\n\nproceeding in a case under Sections 138 and 141 of the N. I. Act.\n\n        Having regard to the observations made above, I am of the\n\nopinion that there is no scope for interference in respect of the\n                                      7\n\n\n\n\nproceedings pending against the petitioners.\n\n        The contentions so advanced relate to question of facts\n\nparticularly with respect to the Directors who in course of the trial\n\nwould by adducing evidence or by way of cross-examination would\n\nprove their innocence so far as their vicarious liability under Section\n\n141 of the N. I. Act is concerned.\n\n        With the     aforesaid   observations,   the   present   revisional\n\napplication being CRR 776 of 2021 is disposed of\n\n        Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of.\n\n All concerned parties are to act in terms of a copy of this order duly\n\ndownloaded from the official website of this court.\n\n\n\n                                         [Tirthankar Ghosh, J]