Case: Katta Sujatha (Smt) Vs. Fertilizers &amp; Chemicals Travancore Ltd

2. A complaint was filed in the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur that the Firm (respondent) and three other persons named therein as accused have committed certain acts which attract the provisions of S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act").  3. The complaint set out that a cheque had been issued on behalf of thet accused by T.d accused but did not specifically attribute any particular act done by 4th accused, who is appellant before us.  4. The trial Court having proceeded with the matter, a petition was filed under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. The said petition having been dismissed this appeal is filed by special leave.

Reasoning:
This Court explained the meaning by observing that the term "person incharge" must mean that the person should be in over all control of the day to day business of the company or firm. The person should be a party to the policy being followed by a company and yet not beincharge ofthe business of the company or may beincharge ofbut not in overall charge or may be in charge of only some part of business5. In short the partner of a firm is liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was in charge of and was responsible to, the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned6. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in KPG Nayar v. Jindal Menthol Ltd.2000 (6) 578 and Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd.JT 1999 SCC 223. Examined in the light of these decisions and the law enunciated, we find no case as such has been made out for proceeding against the appellant.