9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also 23.12.2003 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 864 of 2003 filed by the Petitioners rejecting the application of the Petitioners for recall of process issued under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for Short the said Act) 3. Brief facts leading for filing the present Petition can be summarized as under: The Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm represented through its partner, has filed Criminal Complaint No. 3844 of 2003 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Pune against the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 above named. It is contended by the Respondent No. 1 in the complaint that, it is a stockist and distributor of various types of refin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, and accordingly the accused accepted the said adjustment and have issued the enumerated cheques in favour of the complainant, in discharge of the debts of accused no. 3 to 6 alleged to be payable to the Respondent No. 1 - Complainant. It is further alleged that the Petitioner would provide discharge to Respondent No. 2 and 3 for the amount of Rs. 15 Lacks paid by the said cheques to the Respondent No. 1. It is further alleged that, the said cheques were presented as per the specific instructions of the accused for collection in the bank account with Pune People's Cooperative Bank Ltd, which were allegedly returned under the bankers memo dated 21.02.2003 with endorsement "Account is Closed". It is alleged that, the Respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 846 of 2006 before the Sessions Court at Pune. 8. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune by an order dated 23.12.2003 rejected the Revision filed by the Petitioners. Hence this Writ Petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that, the complaint did not disclose any cause of action for the purpose of issuing process against the Petitioners since the cheques alleged to have been issued by the Petitioners did not bear signatures of any of the Petitioners. Both the courts below have not considered that the cheques were not issued from the bank account maintaining the name of the Petitioners. Petitioners are not concern in any ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account b an arrangement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money of the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. 10. Learned counsel submits that, since the petitioners have not singed the cheques, neither they are under obligation to pay the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
