TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Swaroop Chand Jain and others under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act stating therein that M/s S.K.G. Solvex is a company registered under Companies Act and Swaroop Chand Jain is its Director, who is responsible for its act. This company had purchased yellow Soyabeen from the complainant, for which certain amount of cheque was issued in favour of complainant by another co-accused Jitendra Kumar Jain. However, these cheuques were dishonoured, for which statutory notices as required under sub-clause (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were served and then the complaints were filed. The respondent Swaroop Chand moved two applications under Section 245(2) and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.96 and was received subsequently on 20.3.97 in the office of the Registrar, which prima-facie goes to prove that the resignation was antedated and manipulated for registration in the office of the Registrar. Even other-wise it is a disputed question of facts, which can be gone into after recording the evidence of the parties and discussion of the evidence on merits. Reliance is placed on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Bharat Kumar Modi Vs. M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 3803 and of Delhi High Court in Case of K.P.G. Nair Vs. M/s Jindal Menthol India Ltd. reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 1213, wherein it has been observed that where avertment in complaint prima facie showing that petitioner at r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal Procedure Code. In the circumstances prima facie there is evidence against the respondent suggesting that he was Chairman and Director of the Company and was responsible for its business. The learned revisional Court merely relying upon on the plea and the documents of the respondent had discussed the various provisions of the Companies Act for making out a case of discharge in favour of the respondent without taking into consideration the law on this point that the question of designation was a disputed question of facts and its date was also suspicious. Similarly where if it is found that the resignation was manipulated and was not operation at the time of issuance of cheques then as a Chirman/Director the respondent prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
