TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make averment in the complaint regarding responsibility of the accused and accused can also furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate the contention that alleged offence was committed without his knowledge. In fact, the actual role of the petitioner in the company, in my opinion, cannot be said to be in special knowledge of the complainant whereas role of the petitioner/accused in the company is surely within the special knowledge of the petitioner/accused himself, and that could have been substantiated by any sterling material. According to Section 141 of the NI Act, complainant is only supposed to have knowledge of the person in charge of the company as it is special knowledge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rupees seven lac twelve thousand six hundred and three in connection with CRR 1184 of 2016) bearing cheque no. 000878 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited Hyderabad Branch in favour of the complainant/company. 3. The complainant/ company presented the aforesaid cheques for encashment through its banker namely SBI at 24, Park Street Branch, Kolkata within the stipulated time of the said cheques but upon representation of the said cheques, they were returned dishonoured unpaid with the remarks Account Frozen . 4. Thereafter, the complainant/ company sent demand notices by letters dated 27.11.2012 within the stipulated period prescribed under the NI Act and demanded payment against the dishonoured cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 481 National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and another reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330 Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley Etc. reported in 2011 (2) All India Criminal Law Reporter Lav Jhingan Vs. State of West Bengal anr. reported in 2011 SCC onLine Cal 851 Ramrajsingh Vs. State of M.P. and anr reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 729 Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609 7. I have gone through all the cases referred to on behalf of Mr. Chatterjee. It is settled that to attract the Provision Punishable under Section 138/141 of the NI Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence 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 purposes 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.] 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner/accused. On the other hand in the written complaints in connection with both the revision applications particularly in paragraphs 2 3, it is averred as follows:- In respect to CRR 1182 of 2016- 2. That the accused no. 1 is a Company having its registered office at 36, Sarajini Devi Road, Secundarabad-500003 and accused no. 2 to 6 are working for gain at the office of the accused no. 1 namely Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited and are responsible for day to day affairs of the accused no. 1. 3. That the accused persons in discharge of their existing liabilities arising including from demand promisary note, had drawn an issued cheque out of a Bank account maintained by them with ICICI Bank Limited, for a sum of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is only supposed to have knowledge of the person in charge of the company as it is special knowledge of the petitioner/accused. 15. In this case, petitioner/accused could not show any sterling material that he was not really concerned with the issuance of cheque in order to persuade this Court to quash the proceeding. 16. In view of the aforesaid observation, I find that the instant revision application is liable to be dismissed. 17. The revision application being no. CRR 1182 of 2016 1184 of 2016 Stand dismissed. 18. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
