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

DELHI HIGH COURT
K. S. GUPTA, J.
Cri. M. (M) 412 of 1997
Decided on- 22-12-1999.
SUNIL SAREEN
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR.

Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
D. C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mohit Mathur— For Petitioner.
S. C. Verma with Ms. Shasi Saxena— For Respondents.

Headnote:Result : Petition dismissed.

       

ORDER

This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 seeks setting aside of the order dated 9th December, 1996 and quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against him before a Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. Complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 on 3rd May. 1994, inter alia, alleging that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having its branch office at Surya Plaza, First Floor, K-185/1, Sarai Julena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and has been carrying business of manufacture of capacitors, Para No, 2 which is relevant reads as under :-

"That the accused No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and, inter alia, carrying on its business activities from 25, New Industrial Township, Faridabad, Haryana. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are its directors responsible for its day to day functioning as such are jointly and severally liable to the dues of the complainant."

3. It is stated that the complainant sold and supplied material against the orders placed by the accused and in discharge of their debt/liability accused issued cheque Nos. 000841 dated 10th March, 1994 for Rs. 19,110/-, 000846 dated 14th March, 1994 for Rs. 32,104.80p, totalling Rs. 51,214.80p in favour of the complainant and on presentation these cheques were returned unpaid on 23rd March, 1994 with the remark "exceeds arrangements". Para No. 6 which is also relevant reads as follows :-

"That despite assurance of the accused persons that the said cheques would be honoured by their bankers on presentation, the said cheques had been returned back due to insufficiency of funds. In this way the accused persons including accused Nos. 2 to 7 who are officers responsible for the affairs of the management of the business of accused No. 1, have committed an offence under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments as amended up to date."

4. In the subsequent paras of the complaint it is further alleged that the complainant issued notice dated 28th March, 1994 calling upon the accused persons to make the payment of the amount covered by both the cheques in question within 15 days of the receipt of notice. Despite the service of the notice on 30th March, 1994 the accused have failed/neglected to pay the said amount together with incidental charges. Accused have thus rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act') and, therefore, they may be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with law.

5. To appreciate the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner which I shall be referring hereinafter reference to the statement of Rajiv Agnihotri, marketing manager examined as CW-1 under Section 200, Cr. P.C. by respondent No. 2 and also the relevant portion of the said notice. Ex. CW-1/H which forms part of pre-summoning evidence, is necessary. CW-1, inter alia, deposed that accused No. 1 is a Public Limited Company and it has got a factory in Faridabad and head office at Connaught Place, New Delhi. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the directors of accused No. 1. The entire business in the company is being conducted by accused Nos. 2 to 7 who are also the officers in charge and looking after day to day affairs of the company and are responsible jointly and severally. We supplied material to the accused company and in discharge of their liability accused No. 1 at the instance of accused Nos. 2 to 7 issued and delivered the two cheques in question.

6. Last but one para of the notice Ex. CW-1/H reads as follows :-

"You addresses Nos. 2 to 6 being officers in charge of the affairs of the company are also liable for the payment of the said cheques and in case you all fail to make the payment of the said amount represented by the said cheques, you all shall be criminally liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act as provided thereof."

7. Submission advanced by Sh. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner was tha































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top