9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on the ground of maintainability. 2. The facts of the complaint case as disclosed from the copy of the complaint petition dated August 23, 1989, appended to this revision application may be summarised as follows : The opposite party as complainant filed the said complaint case in his capacity as Secretary, Titagarh Steel Limited. The complaint petition goes on to say that accused-petitioner No. 1 is a public company with its registered office at 19, J. N. Heredia Marg., Volkart Building, Ballard Estate, Bombay-36 and its Calcutta office at Gillander House, N. S. Road, Calcutta-1. Accused-petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are chairman, vice-chairman and secretary of accused-petitioner No. 1. Accused-petitioners Nos. 5 and 7 are working for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his fact of the dishonoured cheque was brought to the notice of the accused by Sri R.L. Gagger, Solicitor and Advocate of the complainant's company, by his letter dated August 9, 1989, wherein he requested the accused to make full payment of the said cheque failing which it was intimated that legal consequences would follow. The accused received the said notice but, in order to avoid their criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, started making wild, frivolous and contradictory statements in their letters and raised some false and flimsy grounds which were false and false within their knowledge as well. The accused failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period as contemplate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged that the petitioners, as principal employer of the said factory, deducted a sum of Rs. 2,206.75 as the employees' share of contribution from the wages of the employees for the period from June, 1980, to March, 1981, but failed to deposit the said amount in the Employees' State Insurance Funds within the specified time. In such circumstances, it was alleged that the accused persons had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid documents and had committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused petitioners. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioners came up before this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat such persons were in charge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its day-today business. In the absence of any mention in the petition of complainant as to how the accused persons were concerned in the carrying on of the day-to-day business of the company, process could not have been issued against them. The case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan, 1983CriLJ159 , is also a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case was instituted against the company, its directors and manager. There were no clear allegations against the manager and the directors that they were responsible for the conduct of business of the disputed sample of the adulterated food. It was held that the proceedings could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g before me has been intelligently drafted and appears to me to be almost identical to paragraph 5 of the complaint petition of the case before the Supreme Court under reference, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass, 1983CriLJ172 . It is drafted thus: 3. That all the accused were and are in charge of and were and are responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of accused No. 1, the company having its Calcutta office at Gillander House, N. S. Road (P.S. Hare Street), Calcutta-1, within the jurisdiction of the learned court. 8. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that prima facie there are no materials to show that the accused petitioners have committed an offence punishable under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean that the cheque was dishonoured. He had tried to draw support from a judgment of the House of Lords in London Joint Stock Bank Ltd. v. Macmillan and Arthur [1918] AC 777. The relevant passage reads as follows (at page 824) : The case, then, must be taken as the simplest one, namely, of a cheque duly signed, forwarded on behalf of the customer to the banker, and honoured. My Lords, there are in these circumstances reciprocal obligations. If the cheque do not contain on its face any reasonable occasion for suspicion as to the wording and figuring of its contents, the banker, under the contract of mandate which exists between him and his customer, is bound to pay. He dare not, without liability at law, fail in this obligation, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
