JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-Appellant against the judgment and order dated 9th November, 2012 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in Crl. Revision No. 467 of 2011. By the impugned judgment and order the said Criminal Revision has been dismissed by the High Court affirming the concurrent finding of conviction arrived at by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal is as follows:

The Respondent-company filed a complaint case stating therein that it dealt with production, manufacturing, marketing and selling of sponge iron and other allied iron ore products. The Appellant who was one of its customers, placed orders through its agent M/s. Jayani Ispat, Raipur during 21.06.2007 and 24.12.2007 under different invoices and challans. Accordingly, various materials were supplied to the Appellant by the Respondent-Company. The Appellant also made payment in intervals. However, by 24.12.2007 an amount of Rs.72,22,037/- remained outstanding on the Appellant. As such, a request was made to clear the outstanding amount. On such request, in the month of December, 2007, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid. On 27.02.2008, a written request was sent by the Respondent-company for clearing the outstanding dues and submitting 'C Form as required by the Sales Tax Department. The Appellant in first week of March, 2008, handed over cheques on different dates in total amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and promised that the entire outstanding dues will be cleared up before 20.4.2008. Seven cheques bearing numbers 678339 dated 21.3.2008, 678340 dated 24.3.2008, 678341 dated 26.3.2008, 678342 dated 29.3.2008, 678343 dated 3.4.2008, 678344 dated 8.4.2008 and 678345 dated 14.04.2008 drawn on Nariman Point Branch of Central Bank of India, Mumbai amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/- which had been issued by the Appellant in favour of the opposite party were presented before its banker Andhra Bank, Sambalpur on 18.4.2008 for encashment. The bank informed that the cheques could not be honoured due to stop payment on the account as per the instruction of the drawer.

3. As a consequence of the said dishonor of the cheques, the Respondent issued notice Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') through one of its Directors asking to make payment within 15 days of the notice. On non-payment of the said amount, a complaint was filed by the Respondent-company before the Trial Court, which after hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence convicted the accused-Appellant for the offence Under Section 138 of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.04.2010 passed by the sub-Division Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur in I.C.C. No. 259/2008, the Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26/2010 before the District & Sessions Judge, Sambalpur which was dismissed on 27.05.2011. Against the same, Criminal Revision was preferred before the High Court which was rejected by the impugned judgment.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was the Director of M/s. Naina Devi Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. The cheque was issued on behalf of the said Company. Though the complainant/Respondent arraigned the Appellant-Director as an accused, the Company, namely M/s. Naina Devi Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. was not arraigned as accused. It is contended that in absence of impleadment of the Company as per Section141 of the Act, the punishment Under Section 138 on the Director cannot be sustained.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/Respondent requested to refer the matter to a larger Bench. According to him the three Judges' Bench in the case of Aneeta Hada v. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 SCC 661 followed the decision of this Court in case of State of Madras v. C.V. Parekh and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 491 and suggested that in Sheoratan Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984) 4 SCC 352 th