9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent/complainant has alleged that the second accused/second petitioner is the authorised distributor of the products of the complainant-company and the first accused/first petitioner is none other than the father of the second accused/second petitioner. The first accused signs cheques regularly on behalf of the second accused for business transactions which is being run under the name and style of Padmodaya Agencies. The second accused has authorised the first accused to determine the contracts between the parties and issue negotiable instruments to discharge the liabilities incurred by the second accused. 4. It is further alleged by the complainant that the complainant-company supplied goods to the accused and towards the existing li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. The records filed on the side of the complainant would establish that there had been amalgamation of M/s. Indian Shaving Products Limited with M/s. Gillette India Limited. The banker of course has returned the cheque as though a cheque was presented for collection by M/s. Indian Shaving Products Limited. It is submitted that the complainant had already informed the banker about the amalgamation of those two companies and the existence of M/s. Gillette India Limited alone after amalgamation but the banker has wrongly mentioned in the memo and returned the cheques as though M/s. Indian Shaving Products Limited was still in vogue. As sufficient material is produced on the side of the complainant to show the amalgamation as per the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider whether the mandate holder who issued the cheque on behalf of the account holder is liable to answer the criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hold that such a mandate holder is not accountable to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. Admittedly in this case, the first petitioner who is the father of the second petitioner was the mandate holder to issue cheque on behalf of the second petitioner. The account is in the name of the second petitioner only. Therefore the first petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. In the result, the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 26715 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
