9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in failure of justice and miscarriage of justice. The order came to be passed without considering the material placed on record as also without considering the statutory scheme as envisaged in Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings the complainant moved an application under Section 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is prayed that Mukta Developers, a partnership firm be added as accused no.2 and its partner Nandkishore Kanekar be added as accused no.3 in the case. 4. It is contended that the accused, in reply, never raised any defence that Mukta Developers is a partnership firm and one Nandkishor Kanekar along with the accused are its partners. It was his further cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant issued demand notice as per provisions of law. 6. Accused gave reply and denied the contents. Thereafter, complainant filed the complaint before the JMFC. Complainant's power of attorney holder deposed as per his complaint, however, in cross he has admitted that he has not sent any separate notice to Mukta Developers and not added Mukta Developers as party to the present case. The learned JMFC has duly considered the evidence on record which clearly goes to show that the complainant was very much aware about the transaction. The cheques are signed by the partners of Mukta Developers. On bare perusal of the cheques also it appears that there is a stamp of "Mukta Developers", and below it "For Mukta Developers Authorised Sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor to give such information, so that he can show that the offence was committed without his knowledge. These are the provisions of Special Enactment viz. N.I. Act. and are not inconsistent with the general provisions of Cr.P.C., which are already quoted. Thus, provisions of N.I. Act show that there is burden of proof of defence on the person like Managing Director of the company under the proviso of section 141(1) of N.I. Act." 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri A.D. Bhobe vehemently submitted that there is no case to grant leave as order passed is perfectly justified and one cannot go beyond the provisions of law inspite of knowledge that Mukta Developers is a partnership firm and signatories are authorised to sign on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was drawn on the account of DAKSHIN is a manifestly false statement. On the face of the cheque, it is clear that it was drawn on account of DAKSHIN. Admittedly the respondent issued a notice contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 to DAKSHIN. The fact is recorded by the High Court. The relevant portion is already extracted in para 15. 10. In present matter also, I have seen the copy of cheque. The cheque clearly has a stamp as "Mukta Developers Authroised Signatory" and there are two signatures below it. The complainant has not taken any steps as per provisions of NI Act to serve notice to the firm or to other signatory. Section 142 opens with non-obstant clause and mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
