9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner (A2) alleging that, for a debt due to him, A-1 issued a cheque, which, on presentation for payment into the bank, was dishonoured and that statutory notice issued to A-1 and the petitioner, intimating them about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, was returned unclaimed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner are described as the Director and Managing Director, respectively, of a company which is not made an accused in the case. Though the complaint does not disclose as to who drew the cheque that was dishonoured, xerox copy of that cheque, filed along with this petition, (original of which was produced by the 1st respondent along with the complaint) shows that it was drawn by A-1 in hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apart from the company, would also be liable for the said offence, by virtue of Section 141 of the Act. As stated earlier there is no scope for invoking Section 141 of the Act because the dishonoured cheque was not issued for and on behalf of a company. Since petitioner, admittedly, did not draw the dishonoured cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank, and since there is no scope for invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company of which petitioner is the Managing Director, for the debt allegedly due to 1st respondent from the said company, is of no consequence. 5. Therefore even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, petitioner cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 60 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
