9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading to the filing of the present petition, as narrated in the petition, is as follows: 2.1 Accused No. 1, M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd., secured a Short Term Loan [STL] of INR 50 Crore for a period of six months from the Respondent, UCO Bank, on 30th June, 2011. The pre-disbursement conditions for the sanction of the STL stipulated that Accused No. 1 would furnish post-dated cheques for both the principal instalment and interest. Accordingly, Accused No. 1 provided one undated cheque of INR 50 Crore and five undated cheques of INR 66,66,667/- each to the Respondent. The Petitioner (Accused No. 2) was one of the signatories of the cheques, and the director of Accused No. 1 at the time of issuance of these cheques. 2.2 The Petitioner tendered his resignation from Accused No. 1 on 26th March, 2012, which was subsequently accepted by the board on 15th May, 2012. Upon becoming aware that the Petitioner's resignation was impending, the Respondent filled in the date on the cheques as 12th May, 2012 and 14th May, 2012, which were prior to his resignation. The Respondent presented these cheques for encashment on 12th July, 2012, however they were returned unpaid on 13th July, 2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he held at the time of issuance. Reliance is placed on the ruling of this Court in Kamal Goyal vs. United Phosphorus Ltd. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 447. 3.4 Accused No. 1 had issued six undated cheques to the Respondent. Upon becoming aware of the Petitioner's impending resignation, the Respondent, deliberately filled the dates 12th May, 2012 and 14th May, 2012 on the cheques, shortly before the Petitioner's resignation on 15th May 2012. 3.5 Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bijay Agarwal vs. M/s. Medilines 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4094., the Petitioner cannot be considered the drawer of the cheque merely on account of being a signatory to the cheque. Analysis 4. At the outset, it is imperative to note that previously, this Court in CRL.L.P. 462/2016, by order dated 21st January, 2025, allowed a challenge to the impugned order dated 28th January, 2016, filed at the instance of UCO Bank, acquitting the other co-accused. As a result, the proceedings against the acquitted accused were directed to continue. 5. However, since the impugned order directed framing of notice under Section 251 CrPC against the Petitioner, he challenged the same in revision before the court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, who contends that all the cheques were post-dated and were towards the discharge of Accused No. 1's liability towards the Respondent. The Respondent further argues that the delay in presenting the cheques beyond their due date was attributable to Accused No. 1 and its directors. Specifically, the Respondent claims that the accused persons had informed them that they were awaiting funds from other sources, and had requested that the cheques not be presented until the end of June. Relying on these assurances, the Respondent delayed presenting the cheques. This was affirmed by the Respondent in their evidence by way of affidavit before the Trial Court, as follows: "That the officials of the Complainant Bank requested the accused persons to pay and clear the outstanding dues of the said loan account but the accused persons kept on delaying the repayment of the said loan oh one pretext or the other and started avoiding the repeated calls of the officials of the Complainant Bank for payment of the bank's dues but on repeated follow up by the officials of the Complainant Bank , the accused persons No.2 and 11 came to the Complainant, Bank's Branch on 12.5.2014 and they being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012, which is subsequent to the issuance of the cheques dated 12th May, 2012 and 14th May, 2012. 10. Furthermore, the Petitioner's reliance on Bijay Agarwal is also untenable as that case concerned an entirely different issue related to the payment of compensation by a director of the accused company while being granted suspension of sentence for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In contrast, the present case pertains to the question of the Petitioner's liability as a director of the accused company under Section 141 of the NI Act. Therefore, the findings in Bijay Agarwal are and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 11. At this juncture, it is essential to highlight the legal principles relating to the liability of a director, who is also a signatory to the cheques, for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act. This issue was discussed in the judgement in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89., whereby the Supreme Court, was inter alia considering the following issue: "Even if it is held that specific averments are necessary, whether in the absence of such averments the signatory of the cheque an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance of Section 141 of the NI Act has been made, it may not open for the High Court to interfere under Section 482 CrPC unless it comes across some unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of process of Court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the particular Director for which there could be various reasons." [Emphasis Supplied] Conclusion 14. The impugned order categorically gives the following reasons for rejecting the revision: "11. It is not disputed that petitioner is one of the signatory to the cheque in question which was dishonoured. It is not disputed that the cheques in question and Form No. 32 were prior to the date of resignation as per the admitted position of the petitioner. It has been categorically held in the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that it shall be matter of trial in case that the cheques have been issued after the resignation as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
