TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Director of Accused No. 3 and one of the Directors of Accused No. 5. Accused No. 2 is the Director of Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 5. Accused No. 4 is also a Director of Accused No. 5. Accused No.3, M/s. Karthick Fisheries incurred debt to the tune of ₹ 42,31,737.00 with the complainant/respondent herein in purchasing prawns. The accused made certain payments. As on April, 1996, the outstanding due from Accused No. 3 was ₹ 22,12,000/-. As the Chairman-cum-Man-aging Director of Accused No. 5, i.e. M/s. Karthick Multi Packs Pvt. Ltd., Accused No. 1 issued a cheque for the said amount on 14-6-1997 drawn on Bank of Madura Ltd., T. Nagar, Madras. The Complainant/respondent herein presented the cheque through the Indian Bank, Melur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adhikari v. Ponraj, 1996 Cri LJ 180 (Mad). In that case, the notice sent to the drawer was returned as not found. N. Arumugham, J. has held that no notice was served upon the drawer as contemplated under sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which would mean that there was no demand for payment. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.D. Jagadish Chandira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently contended that once when notice was given to the company, notice need not be given to the Director individually. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision report in Suraj Theatre v. Kakarla Bhorathe, 1998 Cri LJ 43. wherein a learned single Judge of the Andhra P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statutory notice was issued and all the other accused received the notice, whereas the petitioner herein evaded the notice. 8. In Bhaskaran, K. v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 (3) CTC 358: (1999 Cri LJ 4606) the Apex Court has held that a person notifies or gives notice to another by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to inform the other in the ordinary course, whether or not such other actually comes to know of it and that a person receives a notice when it is duly delivered to him or at the place of his business. There Lordships of the Apex Court has pointed out that if a strict interpretation is given that the drawer should have actually received the notice for the period of 15 days to start running no matter that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the evidence. 12. In the instant case, all the other accused have received the notice. But the notice sent to the petitioner herein alone had been returned. The questions whether or not the notice was returned with culpable mind adopting strategy of subterfuge to success-fully evade notice or whether notice was returned in the usual course, are all matters to be gone into at the time of the trial. 13. Evasion of notice would amount to constructive notice and thus the question whether there had been constructive notice or not has to be considered by the trial Court. On that score, the proceeding cannot be quashed. 14. Regarding the next contention that the proceedings was instituted against the petitioner after his resignation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re matters which have to be gone into during the trial. 16. The same view has been expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Pannir Selvam v. M.M.T.C. Ltd. (2000) 2 Crimes 354 : (2000 Cri LJ 1002) wherein it was held that minute dissection of statement in complaint could not be undertaken in quashing proceedings. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the view that when a plea was raised that the accused ceased to be a Director, it is a matter to be decided during the trial. 17. In Nucor Wires, Limited v. HMT (International) Limited (1998 (2) Kant J 337) cited supra, though the Karnataka High Court reiterates that there should be specific allegations in the complaint to the effect that the Directors are in-charge of and responsib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Instruments Act and the explanation thereto recites as under:- 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, eiher because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
