9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of cognizance without examining the authorized officer. 2. Service of demand notice on the accused-company. 3. Presentation of cheques after six months. 4. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. 5. Impact of company liquidation on prosecution. 6. Specific averments regarding the petitioner's role in the company. 7. Petitioner's resignation from the company. 8. Limitation period for filing the complaint. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Cognizance Without Examining the Authorized Officer The court found this ground to be "apparently misconceived" based on the decision in *National Small Industries Corporation Ltd v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, which held that employees of a Government Company are 'Public Servants' entitled to exemption u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even for offences under the N.I. Act. Issue 2: Service of Demand Notice on the Accused-Company The court dismissed this ground, citing *Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. v. A. Chinnaswami* and *Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla*, which established that a demand notice sent to a director who signed the cheque on behalf of the company amounts to notice to the company itself. Issue 3: Presentation of Cheques After Six Months The court rejected this ground, explaining that a 'post-dated cheque' becomes a cheque on the date shown thereon, as per *Ashok Yeshwant Badeve v. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar* and *Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals NECO Ltd.*. Thus, the complaints were maintainable. Issue 4: Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability The court noted that the offence is a strict liability offence, and Section 139 of the Act creates a presumption in favor of the holder of the dishonored cheque. This ground was found to have no substance. Issue 5: Impact of Company Liquidation on Prosecution The court held that directors can still be prosecuted even if the company is in liquidation, referencing *Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd.* and *Pankaj Mehra v. State of Maharashtra*. Issue 6: Specific Averments Regarding the Petitioner's Role in the Company The court emphasized that liability under Section 141 of the Act arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The court found that the petitioner, as Chairman, was prima facie in charge and responsible, referencing *S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Neeta Bhalla* and subsequent decisions. Issue 7: Petitioner's Resignation from the Company The court noted that the petitioner's resignation was accepted on 12.10.2001, but this fact did not absolve him of liability for cheques issued prior to this date. The court referenced *Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council* and *DCM Financial Services Limited v. J.N. Sareen*. Issue 8: Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint The court found the objection as to limitation misconceived, noting that the complaint was filed within the statutory period. Conclusion: The court dismissed all the petitions, finding no grounds for interference under Section 482 of the Code. The court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/- for each petition due to the petitioner's strategy to cause unnecessary delay.
|
