SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 304

1999(9) Supreme 469
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. -Appellant
versus
A. Chinnaswami -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 1999
(@ SLPs (Crl.) Nos.1812-1813 of 1998)
Decided on 12-3-1999

IMPORTANT POINT
Where cheque was signed by M.D. of Company and notice of dishonour and demand was issued and complaint was lodged in name of M.D., it could not be said that notice u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument was not proper so as to quash process against M.D.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 138 r/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure -Dishonour of cheque-Cheque signed by C who was M.D. of Company-Notice of demand, on dishonour of cheque issued in name of C to his official address-Prosecution proceedings quashed by High Court on ground that notice was not sent to Company itself-Unsustainable- C was signatory of cheque and process was issued to C -No infirmity in notice issued u/s 138-High Court erred in quashing complaint.

       Held : The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that notice under Section 138 was sent by the appellant herein to A. Chinnaswami at his office address but this could not mean that the notice was sent to the Company itself. On this ground alone, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint which was filed. The High Court erred in quashing the complaint. It is evident that proceedings were initiated by the appellant against A. Chinnaswami who happened to be the Managing Director of Shakti Spinners Ltd. The cheques in question which were dishonoured were signed by him. The process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate in his name. We see no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 138 addressed to A. Chinnaswami, who was a signatory of the said cheques. The High Court, in our opinion, clearly fell in error in allowing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in quashing the complaint and setting aside the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate. (Paras 3 & 4).

       

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Six cheques were issued in favour of the appellant herein. The cheques were signed by A. Chinnaswami, Managing Director of Shakti Spinners Ltd. When the cheques were presented for payment, they were dishonoured on the ground that "sufficient funds were not available and exceed arrangement". A notice was then sent by the appellant which the respondent refused to accept. This was followed by a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopda, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra. On the complaint being filed, a process was issued against the accused.

3. The respondent moved an application before the Magistrate asking him to recall the process. Having failed in this attempt, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that notice under Section 138 was sent by the appellant herein to A. Chinnaswami at his office address but this could not mean that the notice was sent to the Company itself. On this ground alone, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint which was filed.

4. In our opinion, the High Court erred in quashing the complaint. It is evident that proceedings were initiated by the appellant against A. Chinnaswami who happened to be the Managing Director of Shakti Spinners Ltd. The cheques in question which were dishonoured were signed by him. The process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate in his name. We see no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 138 addressed to A. Chinnaswami, who was a signatory of the said cheques. The High Court, in our opinion, clearly fell in error in allowing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in quashing the complaint and setting aside the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. The Judicial Magistrate will now proceed to decide SCCs Nos. 155 and 156 of 1995 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(C.R.) Appeals allowed.

************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top