TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residing in far off places. In a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, petitioners/accused and the complainant would be knowing each other and there should have been some transactions between them. In the instant case, the petitioners/accused had purchased computers and other accessories from the respondent/complainant and they are not stranger to the complainant. It is relevant to note that under the amended provision of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed within the jurisdiction of the court, where the banker of the complainant is situate. In this case, the bank of the complainant is in Chennai and therefore, the complaint was filed within the jurisdictional court. Since the case is of the year 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai is directed to dispose off the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy this order. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that since the 2nd petitioner is a senior citizen aged 81 years, his personal appearance before the trial court should be disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,13,216/- III Petitioner 3 956985, drawn on Corporation Bank, Jeyanagar Branch(0074), Bangalore 560 011 27.01.2012 27,82,441/- II Petitioner When the cheques were presented for encashment on 08.06.2012 by the complainant through his bankers viz., HDFC Bank Limited, CMS Operation, 2nd Floor, 115, Radhakrishnan Salai, (Opp) CSI Kalyani Hospital, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, the same were returned for the reason Account Closed . Therefore, the complainant issued a notice dated 28.06.2012 to the petitioners/accused and the same was received by the 2nd and 3rd accused, who are the Managing Director and Additional Director respectively of the first accused company on 30.06.2012. According to the complainant, the 2nd and 3rd accused as directors of the first accused company, are responsible for the day today affairs of the company and also they had active involvement in all the transactions between the complainant and the accused. 3. Mr.Lakshmi Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1530 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Bhalla and another in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 70 [ii] N.K.Wahi v. Shekhar Singh and others in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 481. In none of the above decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is held that the date of commission of the offence is the date of presentation of the cheques. Infact, in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat in (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 375 it has been held thus:- 19. On behalf of the signatories of the dishonoured cheques it was argued that the dishonour had taken place after they had resigned from their positions and that the failure of the Company to honour the commitment implicit in the cheques cannot be construed as an act of dishonesty on the part of the signatories of the cheques. We do not think so. Just because the authorised signatories of the cheques have taken a different line of defence that the one taken by the Company does not in our view justify quashing of the proceedings against them. The decisions of this court in National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla render the authorised signatory liable to be prosecuted along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the petitioners, it has been held that an enquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary before issuing process. It is pertinent to point out that the above decisions are related to the offences committed under the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, it is true that the procedure for trial of a private complaint for the offences under the Indian Penal Code cannot be different from a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The amendment of Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code was made by the Central Act 25 of 2005, in order to curb the practice of private complaints being filed by unscrupulous person against persons residing in far off places. In a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, petitioners/accused and the complainant would be knowing each other and there should have been some transactions between them. In the instant case, the petitioners/accused had purchased computers and other accessories from the respondent/complainant and they are not stranger to the complainant. It is relevant to note that under the amended provision of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
