9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Daljit Singh son of Gurdev Singh and petitioner Amarjit Singh Bhurjee son of Mohinder Singh, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws Amendment Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the N.I.Act"). 2. Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary evidence on record, the trial Magistrate summoned the accused to face the trial of indicated offence, by means of impugned summoning order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure P8). 3. Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner-accused has also earlier filed a petition, bearing CRM No. M-37709 of 2010 to quash the same very impugned complaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el shall appear on each date of hearing and he shall have no objection if the evidence of the complainant is recorded in his absence and he shall appear on such day/days when his presence is required by the learned trial Magistrate for which intimation shall be given to the counsel appearing from him. The criminal misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn." CRM No. M-32911 of 2012 (O&M) 4. Thereafter, the accused again moved an application (Annexure P10) to discharge them under section 245 Cr.PC. The complainant filed the reply (Annexure P11) to the application and prayed for its dismissal. 5. The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P10), by virtue of impugned order dated 16.8.2012 (Annexure P12). 6. The petitioner-accused st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry person who, at the time the offence was committed, in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." Moreover, the petitioner would be at liberty to prove during the course of trial that the offence was committed without his knowledge, as contemplated in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 141. 11. As discussed here-in-above, there are direct allegations in the complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 were in charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith, at this initial stage, that they are liable to be discharged in this relevant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
