9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled either by the State Government or Central Government. It is also not shown that they had been nominated as Directors of the Corporation by virtue of that office held. On the contrary, it does appear that all the applicants were appointed as officers of the Corporation itself. The burden to establish the applicability of the exemption created by the second proviso to Section 141 of the Act was on the applicants. That burden not discharged, at present, no good ground is made out to offer any interference on such count. It is however made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the rights of the applicants on this issue. It may therefore remain open to the applicants to raise proper objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 283 of 2007 (Dinesh Tyagi Vs. Manoj Pathak), under Section-138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. 3. Undisputedly, the complainant had been issued a cheque for ₹ 10,34,900/- being Cheque No. 311371 dated 29.12.2006. That cheque had been issued towards payment of dues of the complainant against M/s. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Nirman Evam Vikas Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). It was signed by its functionaries Krishan Mohan (Project Manager) and Manoj Kumar Pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sofar as applicant nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are signatories of the defaulted cheque. They do not dispute the fact of having signed that defaulted cheque for and on behalf of the Corporation. 7. Insofar as applicant no. 3-Bhikari Singh is concerned, other than the fact that he was the Chairman of the Corporation, there is no fact allegation made against him in the complaint or in the statement recorded for the purposes of issuance of summon orders. 8. Insofar as Yogesh Shukla is concerned, he was the Managing Director of the Corporation, at the relevant time. The Corporation was necessary to be impleaded for the purpose of a successful prosecution against signatories of the cheque. At the same time, the Managing Director agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. It is also not shown that they had been nominated as Directors of the Corporation by virtue of that office held. On the contrary, it does appear that all the applicants were appointed as officers of the Corporation itself. 13. The burden to establish the applicability of the exemption created by the second proviso to Section 141 of the Act was on the applicants. That burden not discharged, at present, no good ground is made out to offer any interference on such count. It is however made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the rights of the applicants on this issue. It may therefore remain open to the applicants to raise proper objection before the learned Magistrate, if such facts exist. 14. Thus, examined in that light, pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
