As per the case facts, the appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court affirmed this conviction. The reason for the appeal to the ... Supreme Court was to challenge this conviction, especially considering that the company was not convicted by the trial court. The question arose whether the conviction of a nominated person under the Negotiable Instruments Act is sustainable if the company itself was not convicted by the trial court. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, confirming the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Supreme Court stated that if the company is not convicted, the nominated person cannot be convicted, as the liabilities are conjoint, not alternative. Remanding the case to fill this gap would be unfair to the appellant who has faced trial for an extended period.