9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he complainant and A-1 company (Raghunath Cotton and Oil Products) as commission agent. Certain amounts were found due from accused No. 1-company to the complainant and subject to final settlement the accused agreed to pay ₹ 135 lakhs and issued a cheque dated November 6, 1994, for ₹ 65,00,000 drawn on the State Bank of India, Ongole branch on the account of accused No. 1-company. Another cheque dated November 29, 1994, for ₹ 70 lakhs drawn on the same bank on the same account was also issued under the signature of the managing director of the company who is the second accused in that C. C. The complainant presented the cheques for collection in their bank, namely, the State Bank of India, Ongole, on November 22, 1994. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be seen that the complaint is in respect of dishonour of cheque of ₹ 65,00,000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tamada Gopala Krishna seeks quashing of these proceedings on various grounds. 5. Firstly, it is contended that the petitioner herein is accused No. 6 in the complaint and admittedly notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued to the company and its managing director, i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, and no notice was issued separately to the petitioner herein and as such requirement under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been complied with. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, contends that the petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. 9. Reading together the provisions in sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it would be clear that while Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates the basis for liability against the employees of the company if the requirements under the said section are satisfied, there is no contemplation of notice to be issued in respect of such employees whose liability is based on Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As observed above, the requirement of Section 138(b) of the Act is that notice should be sent to the drawer of the cheque and not to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aint, there is a specific averment in this regard as follows : When the facts were brought to the notice of accused Nos. 2 to 7 who are in charge of the affairs of the accused company relating to the transaction under reference, they requested the complainant to represent ... Again, in para. 6 of the complaint, the following assertion is found : The second accused being the managing director and signatory of the cheque and the fifth accused (sixth accused ?) as commercial manager who requested time with a promise to make the funds available and accused Nos. 3 to 5 being the other directors in charge of the day-to-day affairs are responsible to see that the cheque is duly honoured when presented by the complainant. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t words of Section 141 of the Act to the effect was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company are not reproduced in the complaint does not justify the quashing of the proceedings. At any rate, in this case there is not only an assertion that the petitioner as a commercial manager was in charge of the affairs of the company, there is further elaboration in regard to his role in as much as it is stated that it was the petitioner who requested time for payment with, a promise to make the funds available. 18. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, 1999CriLJ1833 , in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
