Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Super Inducto Steels Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Annapurna Cast Ltd. and Another – Respondents
C.R.R. No. 4568 of 2023
Decided On : 14-11-2025
Key Points: - The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227/Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited to jurisdictional/due process errors and not a reappraisal of evidence (Paras 26-31, 27, 30) (!) (!) (!) . - A complainant’s change of name does not invalidate pending Section 138 proceedings; a prior judgment remains valid and the complaint can continue by the substituted/new entity under law (Paras 14, 32, 33) (!) (!) (!) . - The court enumerates the essential ingredients for cognizance under Section 138, including: drawer’s mandate to pay, cheque within six months, dishonour due to insufficient funds, notice to pay within 15 days, and failure to pay within 15 days (Kusum Ingots ingredients) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioners’ arguments about non-amendment of cause title and non-existence of the complainant were rejected; authority was established by board resolutions and subsequent authorization (Paras 31, 33) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case background and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on behalf of the petitioners challenging validity of complaint (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments from opposite party regarding complaint's validity (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. discussion on relevant provisions of n.i. act (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's observations on evidence and conviction (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. limitations of jurisdiction under article 227 and section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. maintainability of the complaint despite company name change (Para 31 , 32) |
| 8. conclusion affirming lower court's judgment (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the Petitioners Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2023 (Super Inducto Steels Ltd. & Anr. vs. Annapurna Casts Ltd. & Anr.).
2. By the said Judgment and Order, the Learned Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated December 22, 2022, passed by the Learned 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, in complaint case being No. C/2839/2000 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short ‘N.I. Act’) whereby and whereunder the petitioners herein were convicted for an offence punishable under of the NI Act and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lacs along with simple interest @ 9% per annum upon the said amount, and in default, convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months and the amount of fine imposed is to be paid within a period of two (02) months from the date of judgment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. Brief facts of the present case, in hand, are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows:
a. The petitioner no. 1 is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and presently governed under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner no. 2 is one of the Directors of the said Petitioner no.1 company.
b. The Petitioner no. 1 company was engaged in the manufacture of iron ingots and iron rods. Subsequently, it became a sick industrial unit and was registered with the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in 2010, following its financial difficulties since 2003.
c. The opposite party no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a case under section 138 of the NI Act against the present petitioners. Upon receipt of notice, the Petitioner no. 2, appeared before the Trial Court and was enlarged on bail. The case was duly contested by the Petitioners.
d. It transpires from the aforesaid complaint that in March 1999, the complainant supplied iron moulds to the petitioner no. 1 company by two trucks under two separate invoices to the tune of Rs. 2,14,619/- and Rs. 1,81,105/- respectively. Against the said invoices, the petitioners issued one A/C payee cheque bearing No. 076789 dated 27.10.1999 drawn on Punjab National Bank, for a total sum of Rs. 3,95,724/-. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on 22.04.2000, with the endorsement “Insufficient funds.”
e. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 02.05.2000 under section 138 of the NI Act demanding payment of the said cheque amount. The petitioners, however, failed to comply with the demand within the stipulated time, whereupon the complainant initiated proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act.
f. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court, by its order dated 22.12.2022, convicted the petitioners under section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced them as aforesaid.
g. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentences, the petit
The court affirmed that changes in a complainant company's name do not invalidate pending legal actions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited t....
The court upheld the convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming that dishonour of a cheque creates a statutory presumption of liability, which the accused failed to re....
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act affirmed, emphasizing the necessity of due process in criminal trials and the validity of a Magistrate's authority.
A cheque issued from an account not held by the issuer fails to satisfy the basic requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to acquittal.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid unless a credible defense is presented, and dishonor of a cheque issued as security can lead to conviction un....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – A post-dated cheque issued after debt has been incurred would be covered by definition of ‘debt’ – However, if sum payable depends on a contingent event, then it takes colou....
A cheque issued as security can be subjected to Section 138 liabilities; presumption under Section 139 requires the accused to establish a probable defence for avoidance of conviction.
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
