The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the liability of individuals in charge of a company under Section 141.

B.S. Verma, J.-This application under Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the applicants to quash the proceedings of Case No. 334 of 2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 (for shot the Act) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II Dehradun,

2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present application, in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as auditors of the company for the year 1993-94 for Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the respondent No.1 submitted its bill dated 30.11.1998 to the applicant No.1 for the amount of Rs.1,36,115/- out of which amount of Rs.32.315/- was in lieu of travelling and out of pocket expenses. At appears that no vouchers/documents were submitted by the respondent No.1 in support of travelling and out of pocket expenses at the time of submission of bill and the same were even not submitted thereafter.

3. A cheque No. 174624 dated 8.3.2000 for an amount of Rs.34.393/- payable at Ganga Yamuna Gramm Bank Dehradun alongwith covering letter dated 15.3.2000 was issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 against part payment of the said bill in lieu of travelling and out of pocket expenses and service tax. In the covering letter the applicant No. 1 had asked the respondent No. 1 to submit the bills of expenditures to the applicants and then to tender the cheque for encashment to the bank. A copy of the covering letter was also endorsed to the bank concerned with stop payment remark. However, the respondent No. 1 presented the cheque No. 174624 dated 8.3.2000 for Rs.34.393/ - to the bank for encashment, which was returned to the respondent No.1 with the remark "payment stopped".

4. It appears that after the cheque was returned by the Bank with the remark "stop payment by the drawer" to the respondent No. 1 the respondent No. 1 issued a registered notice dated 21.3.2000 to Garhwal Maridal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Dehradun asking the applicant No. 1 to send demand draft for the aforesaid amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The applicants sent reply of the registered notice by letter dated 4.4.2000 to the respondent No. 1 alleging therein that the respondent No. 1 was required to submit the vouchers of expenses before tendering the cheque to the bank for encashment.

5. A complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the three applicants under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Dehradun. In paragraph 8 of the complaint, the respondent No.1 had mentioned that vide notice dated 21.3.2000 sent by registered post on 22.3.2000, complainant intimated the accused No. 1 about the fate of the said cheque and made a demand for the payment of the amount of said cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. The complaint was registered as, Criminal Case No. 334 of 2000 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II. Dehradun.

6. It appears that the learned Magistrate after satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint, passed an order dated 12.6.2000 summoning the accused-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 to answer the complaint. The accused applicants filed objection, paper No. 18-A dated 27.11.2000 before the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties did not find favour with the applicants' objection and rejected the same by his order dated 14.6.2001. Aggrieved by that order, the applicants preferred a revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court after hearing the parties has observed that the applicant No. 2 is not protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Revision Court also did not find favour that the applicant No.2 is protected from prosecution under proviso second appended to Section 141 (1) of the Act. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2003.

7. The applicants have approached this Court by making an application under Section 482 of the Code of