IMPORTANT POINTS
(i)Where dishonoured cheque was drawn by Company and statutory demand notice was served upon the Company, individual notices upon persons incharge of and responsible to the company for its business was not a pre-condition for prosecution of such persons.
(ii)While computing validity period of six months of cheque in which it is to be presented in the Bank, date on which cheque is presented in Bank is to be excluded.

A.M. Kapadia, J.—By means of filing instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’ for short), the petitioner against whom Criminal Case bearing No. 324 of 2001 is filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act’ for short) in which process has been issued, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint and the process issued thereunder, on the grounds stated in the petition.

2. The petitioner is the original accused No. 7 whereas respondent No. 1, a proprietary concern, is the original complainant in the above referred to criminal case. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the petitioner is referred to as “accused No. 7” whereas respondent No. 1 is referred to as “the complainant” hereinafter in this Judgment.

3. As per the averments made in the complaint bearing Criminal Case No. 324 of 2001 filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, the complainant is a proprietary concern running in the name and style of Rajesh Shah & Co. dealing in the business of purchase and sale of shares as per oral or telephonic instructions issued from its customers Brijlaxmi Leasing & Finance Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, is accused No. 1 (‘accused company’ in short) in the said complaint whereas accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the Directors of the said Company and accused No. 7 (the present petitioner) is the Manager and authorised signatory to sign cheque on behalf of the Company). Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are engaged themselves as full time Directors and Manager and running the administration of the company jointly. All the accused are customers of the complainant and they used to sell and purchase shares through the complainant company.

4. As per the further averments made in the complaint, there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 94,50,852.75 Ps. due and payable by the accused company to the complainant as on 30.5.2000. In part of the discharge of the said payment, the accused has given cheque bearing No. 085685 dated 30.5.2000 for an amount of Rs. 4,61,875/- drawn on Centurion Bank Limited, Alkapuri, Vadodara in favour of the complainant. On presentation of the said cheque with HDFC Bank where the complainant is having bank account, it returned the same on 31.5.2000 with an endorsement that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the accused. The said intimation was received by the complainant on 1.6.2000. Since there was good relations between the complainant and the accused company and still there was outstanding dues of the accused company payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 89,50,852.75 it was agreed between them to present the said cheque at any time again. Thereafter the transaction was continued between both of them. The complainant again presented the cheque on 30.11.2000. The said cheque was returned on 1.12.2000 with the endorsement that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the accused company. Therefore, as per the averments made in the complaint, the amount of Rs. 4,61,875/- is outstanding from the accused company payable to the complainant and the cheque issued in favour of the complainant was dishonoured, all the accused have committed offence under Section 138 of the Act.

5. In Order to comply with the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, the complainant has issued notice on 12.12.2000 which was served upon the accused company on 13.12.2000 to which the accused company and all other accused through their advocate have given evasive and false reply on 25.12.2000. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the complaint against all the accused for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act after complying with the requisite provisions of the Act.

6. On presentation of the said complaint, on 25.1.2001 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara recorded verification of t