9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered office at New Delhi. Accused Nos. 2 to 9 are persons who are controlling the business affairs of the accused No. 1 and are in-charge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct of the business thereof. They are playing active role in the management and in the day-to-day affairs of the accused No. 1. 4. The accused No. 1 was granted financial assistance for procuring raw material. The accused No. 1 issued a cheque dated 10.1.1999 in the sum of ₹ 24,99,450/- as part payment of its pecuniary liability in favor of the complainant, the cheque was signed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 for and on behalf of accused No. 1. The said cheque was dishonoured because the accused had closed the account meaning thereby that the accused knew that the cheque would be dishonoured. It is alleged in para 8 that the offence has been committed by accused No. 1 company through and with the consent and connivance of all the accused Nos. 2 to 9. Notice was sent but in vain. 5. I have also gone through the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing and perusing the record, was of the opinion that prima facie case was made out and acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing active role in the management and the day-to-day affairs of the accused company and that the company acted with consent or connivance of all the accused persons, the requirement of making the averments as per Sections 141(1) and 141(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act and as per the latest legal position SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neetu Bhalla and Anr. ; Rachna Kapoor v. State and Ors. ; Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. and; Saraswathy Amma and Anr. v. Swil Ltd. and Anr. , cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my view, are completely met and the petitioner accused cannot be heard to say that his role has not been specifically explained in the complaint. 8. As regards the second point of non-service of individual notice to the Directors, the learned Counsel for the respondent has cited the judgment titled Jain Associates and Ors. v. Dipak Chaudhary and Co. , where the question raised was whether the notice was to be sent to the partnership firm as well as to the partners under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act in case a cheque issued on behalf of the partnership firm was dishonoured. The Court discussed several judgments of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 142 in Chapter XVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Not only the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the Courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time-bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act. 2.... 3.... 4.... 5. The proposed amendments in the Act are aimed at early disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques, enhancing punishment for offenders, introducing electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form as well as exempting an official nominee director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the period of imprisonment has been enhanced from 1 year to 2 years. Already there is provision for fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque as additional punishment for the offence. Under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Trial Court has to make efforts to conclude the trial within 6 months. These amendments have been incorporated to curb the delays and to highlight the gravity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Recently, the Supreme Court of India after examining the entire case law under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure in the judgment titled Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque , has inter alia opined as under- The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent has cited the judgment titled Raj Lakshmi Mills v. Shakti Bhakoo (3 Judges Bench). This was a case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (and the summoning o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
