9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. 3. Undisputedly, the complainant had been issued a cheque for Rs. 10,34,900/- being Cheque No. 311371 dated 29.12.2006. That cheque had been issued towards payment of dues of the complainant against M/s. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Nirman Evam Vikas Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). It was signed by its functionaries Krishan Mohan (Project Manager) and Manoj Kumar Pathak (Junior Engineer). Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured which gave rise to the present complaint. In the complaint, the complainant impleaded the accused persons as under: "1. Krishan Mohan Pandey, Project Manager, M/s. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Nirman Evam Vikas Ltd. 184/4 Agarwal Stationers Gandhi A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no fact allegation made against him in the complaint or in the statement recorded for the purposes of issuance of summon orders. 8. Insofar as Yogesh Shukla is concerned, he was the Managing Director of the Corporation, at the relevant time. The Corporation was necessary to be impleaded for the purpose of a successful prosecution against signatories of the cheque. At the same time, the Managing Director against whom no specific allegation has been made, could not be made accused person in the complaint. 9. As to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on the strength of the second proviso to Section 141 of the Act, we may extract that provision of law: "Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act was on the applicants. That burden not discharged, at present, no good ground is made out to offer any interference on such count. It is however made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the rights of the applicants on this issue. It may therefore remain open to the applicants to raise proper objection before the learned Magistrate, if such facts exist. 14. Thus, examined in that light, prima facie case is made out against applicant nos. 1 and 2 at this stage. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of applicant nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed. At the same time, it may be noted that the present application was filed in the year 2009 and there is an interim order operating in favour of the applicants since 03.06.2009. More than 12 yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
