TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused No.5. In other words, neither the petitioner No.2, nor petitioner No.3 are signatories to the cheques in question. 3. It appears that there were business dealings between the petitioners and respondent no.2. Certain cheques were issued in favour of the respondent No.2 for and on behalf of the petitioner No.1 company. Upon presentation, however, these cheques were returned by the bank with endorsement no image found' or drawee's signature incomplete / illegible'. Respondent No.2, thereupon, issued statutory notices to all the accused including the present petitioners. Since no payment was made within the notice period, he filed separate complaints for cheque bouncing before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Full details of the cheque amounts involved, date of return and the reasons for its dishonour as indicated in the petition, are given in the table below: Sr. No. Slp. Criminal App. Of 2010 Criminal case No. of 2009 Cheque Number Date Return Date Amount Total amount Endorse ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .9.08 8.9.08 9.9.08 18.3.09 35164.36 35056.64 30536.70 100757.70 NIF * 11. 906 6741 923340 923342 923343 5.2.09 9.2.09 11.2.09 467625.00 467625.00 467628.00 1402878.00 NIF * 12. 907 6742 923414 923416 923417 923418 2.8.08 6.8.08 8.8.08 10.8.08 31.1.09 6.2.09 10.2.09 10.2.09 452391.00 452391.00 452392.00 452388.00 1809562.00 NIF * 13. 908 6743 924917 924923 923424 15.10.08 17.10.08 13.10.08 10.4.09 383329.00 402444.00 301783.02 1087556.02 DIS ILL * 14. 909 6744 925026 925025 925024 16.10.08 15.10.08 14.10.08 11.4.09 364286.00 364285.00 364285.00 1092856.00 DIS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24. 919 6754 925082 925083 925084 17.10.08 18.10.08 20.10.08 11.4.09 382166.00 382166.00 382167.00 1146499.00 DIS ILL * 25. 920 6755 924925 924914 924920 10.10.08 12.10.08 13.10.08 9.4.09 402440.00 387710.00 387175.00 1177329.00 DIS ILL * 26. 921 6756 924546 924545 924548 27.9.08 26.9.08 29.9.08 26.3.09 483916.00 483900.00 327150.00 1294966.00 DIS ILL * 27. 922 7392 925092 925093 925094 1.11.08 3.11.08 4.11.08 20.5.09 363002.00 358344.00 358344.00 1079690.00 DIS ILL* 28. 923 7393 925887 925881 925889 24.11.08 25.11.08 26.11.08 18.5.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 933 7403 926282 925882 926277 17.11.08 18.11.08 19.11.08 9.5.09 395000.00 407000.00 404042.00 1206042.00 DIS ILL * 39. 934 7404 925884 925883 926283 20.11.08 19.11.08 19.11.08 14.5.09 407667.04 407000.00 395505.00 1210472.04 DIS ILL * 40. 935 7405 925095 925096 925098 5.11.08 6.11.08 8.11.08 20.5.09 358343.00 350152.00 350153.00 1058648.00 DIS ILL * No Image found Signature (NIF) Drawee signature incomplete illegible - ILL It is the contention of the petitioners that no case is made out against them. All complaints, therefore, need to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has opposed the petitions by filing detailed affidavit contending inter alia that cheques were issued on behalf of the company for payment of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Having heard, thus, learned counsel for the parties, I find that previous bench in the judgment dated 19.04.2010 relying upon the decision in the case Vinod Tanna (Supra) and the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mustafa Surka v. Jay Ambe Enterprise Anr. (Supra) had quashed the complaints qua the original accused No.5. It may be noted that the said accused was signatory to the cheques. Learned Judge concluded the issue in the following manner: 11. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the endorsement that drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied and/or no image foundsignature and/or incomplete signature / illegible and for return/dishonour of cheque on the above endorsement will not attract ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and insufficient fund as a ground for dishonouring cheque cannot be extended so as to cover the endorsement signature differed from the specimen supplied or likewise. If the cheque is returned/bounced/dishonoured on the endorsement of drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied and/or no image foundsignature and/or incomplete signature / illegible , the complaint filed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
