9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in said case the trial Court has passed the order of issuance of process. It is alleged that, the Petitioner herein is the Director of one Anil Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Company (for short 'said Company') looking after the day to day affairs and businesses of the said company. It is alleged in the complaint that, the said company for its operational convenience, requested the Respondent No. 1 to advances invoices with respect of sales contracts in the name of the said company and the said company is controlled by their parent company i.e. Adella Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In pursuance of the aforesaid contracts various invoices were advances from time to time towards the supply of maize thereunder. Complainant has delivered goods in terms of the contracts from time to time and the same has been received without any demur or protest. It is alleged that, as per the terms and conditions of the Contracts there was a credit period of 90 days and post dated Cheques (PDC) were to be offered as security for payments under the invoices advanced and thereafter, PDC's were handed over to the Complainant as security by the said Company. As the Contracts a sum of Rs. 7,94,70,512/(Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as a Director from the said Company on 15th June 2016. Petitioner was an "Additional Director" for the said company from 02.09.2013 which can be clearly seen from the extracts of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that, a bare perusal of the document would make it clear that with effect from 15.06.2016, the Petitioner ceased to be an "Additional Director". The said company also provided with an authenticated copy of the Form-DIR 12 on record reporting the cessation of Directorship of the Petitioner along with the receipt of filing the relevant documents with the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that, the company has provided the list of Directors as per the extracts from the registrar of Companies website which clearly indicates the names of the persons who are presently the Directors of the said Company. It is pertinent to note that the name of the Petitioner does not appear therein and thus no cause of action arises against the Petitioner. It is submitted that, the Accused No. 1 company by their letter dated 16.12.2016 addressed to the 1st Respondent in reply to the Notice dated 25.10.2016, and clearly stated in its Para 6 that "it is to be noted that even othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aborated the role of the petitioner in conduct of the business of the Company. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of the aforesaid contentions placed reliance on the following decisions, in the case of Subramnium Sethuraman Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr 2004 AIR SCW 5326, Harshendra Kumar D. Versus Rebatilata Koley Etc 2011 (1) UC 478 and also in the case of Indian Bank Association and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors 2014 DGLS 389. 10. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for second Respondent has tendered across the bar copy for the Criminal Application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision by the present petitioner, same is taken on record. It is submitted that, there was delay of 181 days filing the said Revision which was not explained. There was considerable delay of 181 days in filing the Revision and therefore, Sessions Court has rightly rejected application for condonation of delay. It is submitted that, complaints / cases filing under Section 138 of the NI Act are required to be herd expeditiously and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing the complaint. The learned counsel invi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime from the date of receipt of summons i.e. 17.02.2018 till July 2018. There is no explanation except that, the petitioner is residing at Ahmedabad. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second Respondent that, cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are required to be tried summarily and trial is required to be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of complaint. It would be apt to reproduce herein below Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as follows: 1[143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials: Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and an amount of fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
