9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of complaint and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Service of statutory notice and its legal implications. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Complaint and Proceedings: This application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the complaint and proceedings in CC.No.31/97. The petitioners were accused A-3, A-4, and A-7 in the criminal case. The court noted that the first petitioner was indeed the Managing Director at the time of the alleged offence, thus liable for the offence committed by the company. The court rejected the argument that the first petitioner was not liable due to his change in position before the complaint was filed. 2. Allegations under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The complaint alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 10.00 lakh, which was dishonored due to "exceeds arrangement." A statutory notice was issued, and a subsequent cheque was also dishonored with the endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer." The complaint specified dates for the cheque issuance, presentation, return, and legal notice. The court emphasized that the complaint contained specific allegations that all accused were jointly and severally liable and managing the business. 3. Service of Statutory Notice and Its Legal Implications: The primary contention was whether the statutory notice was served. The petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose proper service of notice, a mandatory requirement. However, the court noted that the complainant had sent the notice under registered post, and neither the postal cover nor the acknowledgment was returned. The presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was applicable, deeming the notice served unless proven otherwise. The court referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's observations, supporting the presumption of service when a notice is sent by registered post and not returned. The court highlighted that the presumption of service is rebuttable, and it would be open to the accused to prove non-receipt of the notice during trial. The court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings, stating that the issues raised required factual determination during the trial. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings, affirming that the complaint met the legal requirements for service of notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners were advised to file an application before the Trial Court to allow one Director to represent them during the trial, except on dates requiring their presence.
|
