TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Central Bank of India, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, to discharge the debt of ₹ 20,666.60 on account of the loan advanced. The details of the cheques and their numbers had been given in the complaint. The cheques had been presented for encashment and were received back with the remarks exceeds arrangements . A notice was issued to the firm calling upon it to pay the amount of cheques within 15 days. It was received on April 22, 1989, but the payment was not made. Instead a reply was sent. The learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondents as accused persons. 3. On identical facts, the petitioner, Santosh Kumari, preferred another criminal complaint with respect to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date it bears and the period of six months has to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque. 8. That being the position, the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be sustained. However, the respondents' learned counsel took up certain other contentions so as to support the fact that the proceedings had to be quashed and the revision petitions must fail. 9. It was urged vehemently that in each of the complaints more than three cheques are alleged to have been issued while under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months, he can be charged and tried at one trial fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by holding that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by filing of one complaint. However, the accused were permitted to raise these points before the trial court. In fact, for purposes of the present order, one is constrained to observe that as per the allegations a specific amount was due. Certain post-dated cheques were issued. They were numbering 9/10 (already mentioned above in individual complaint). It was, therefore, one transaction and to state that there has to be a separate complaint with respect to each cheque that was dishonoured, will not be correct. Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, will not be a bar in the peculiar facts of the case. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in repelling the said argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of the cheque, as the case may be, 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 fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid ; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. 12. Perusal of the aforesaid provision leaves no doubt that the required notice had been issued to the draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation-- For the purpose of this section--(a) 'company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals ; and (b) 'director', in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. The relevant provisions reveal that for purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the expression company also includes a firm or other associ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary particulars. The position as against Anil K. Mehra is different. The answer against him is obvious, He is not alleged to be the person responsible for conduct of the business of the firm. But the gap is filled up from the fact that it is he who had issued the cheques in favour of each of the petitioners separately. He may show and try to bring his case within the known exceptions of law but as for the present he can be stated to be in charge of and responsible to the firm for conduct of business. At this initial stage, therefore, the complaint as against him can certainly proceed. 16. For these reasons given above, the revision petitions as against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 fail and are dismissed. However, as against respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
