9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he N.I. Act for short). 3. The complaint allegations are that : the accused-petitioners happened to be the dealers of the product of M/s. Nicco Corporation Limited. The products of the said Corporation, which were purchased by the complainant and stocked with him as on January 21, 1997, were transferred to the office/godown of the accused, who, in turn, issued the cheque in question bearing No. 656816, dated March 31, 1997, drawn on State Bank of India, Attavara Branch, Man-galore, for Rs. 1,95,139 in the complainant's favour towards the value of the said materials. When the cheque was presented for encashment to the bank on April 2, 1997, the same bounced by it with its endorsement indicating the reason insufficient fund , in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention that any such premature complaint is liable to be quashed in law. 5. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that the said demand notice dated April 11, 1997, issued to accused No. 1-company, of which accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the directors, was in fact served on it on April 16, 1997, itself, though the said notices on accused Nos. 2 and 3 were served on April 21, 1997. 6. It was argued by Mr. R.B. Deshpande for the respondent-complainant that the service of demand notice on accused No. 1-company was sufficient notice to its directors-accused Nos. 2 and 3, as well since they were its directors. Support for this contention was sought to be drawn by him from a decision of the Calcutta High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in Dilip Kumar Jaiswal v. Debapriya Banerjee [1992] 73 Comp Cas 434. It is held therein that a separate notice upon the executives or the directors is not required to be served for compliance with proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for prosecuting them along with the company for the offence alleged to be committed by the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, in view of this emerging legal principle, the complaint filed in the instant case on May 6, 1997, was clearly after expiry of the fifteen days period next after service on April 16, 1997, of the demand notice stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 138. Thus the complaint filed on May 6, 1997, after accrual of cause of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal liability for the offence committed. 10. The Supreme Court has thus ruled that if the complaint is found to be premature, it can await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later and mere presentation at an earlier date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed. In view of this clear law so laid down by the Supreme Court, the objection raised for the petitioners-accused against maintainability of the complaint will have no legal force. For the same reason, the decision rendered by this court in the case of Ashok Hegde v. Jathin V. Attawan could be no longer a good law. 11. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
