In Brief
This case concerns whether directors and authorised signatories of a company can be directed to make an appellate deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the company itself cannot be prosecuted due to legal impediment (here, winding-up). The appellant director was convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 despite the company being liquidated. The High Court exempted him from the 20% deposit requirement based on prior judgments (Bijay Agarwal, Gurudatta Sugars) holding that only the "drawer" (the company) can be burdened with such deposits. The Supreme Court doubted the correctness of this blanket exemption, finding the prior decisions rested on overly literal statutory construction that defeated the compensatory legislative intent of the 2018 Amendment. The Court referred the matter to a larger bench, holding that exemption must depend on individual case facts, not automatic rule.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.