2002 Supreme(Guj) 706

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.H.WAGHELA
CHEMOX LABORATORIES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER COMPANY LIMITED - Respondent
CRI.M.A. 3934 of 1999
Decided On : 09/19/2002

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -Section 482 -Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -Sections 141,138 -Petitions between the same set of parties are argued and heard together on common issues involved and are disposed by this judgment. The few relevant facts and documents to be found in the first Cri. Misc. Application No. 3934 of 1999 are admittedly representative of all the cases and, therefore, the arguments were based on them. The common prayers of the petitioners are aimed at quashing of the complaints or setting aside the process issued, in the consequent criminal cases, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of the alleged offence punishable. main controversy regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court has already travelled through two judicial proceedings in the form of an application made in the trial Court for transferring the case to the court of competent jurisdiction and the groups of criminal revision applications preferred from the adverse order in the aforesaid earlier proceedings. Thus, this is practically a third attempt at re-agitating the same issues with the invocation of additional powers and making of additional prayers for quashing in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have issued a number of cheques to the respondent No. 1 in the course of their business dealings, that they have been dishonoured and that the complaints have come to be filed after issuance of the demand notices in respect of such cheques. There is also no dispute about the fact that the cheques that bounced were drawn on a bank, they were submitted for realization in an account and accordingly, they can also be said to have been dishonoured at Mumbai. The complaints were filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on the strength of the averments that the payee had its registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the business dealing pursuant to which the cheques had been issued had taken place insofar as the goods were supplied by the payee and, by the notice demanding payment after dishonour of the cheques, the payment was demanded and required to be made. The demand notices were issued and addressed to the accused No. 2 as director of the accused No. 1 company. The complaints were admittedly signed by an officer of the complainant company with his averment that he was authorized by the company to file the complaints. And, a statement of the complainant was also recorded below the complaint. Broadly on this basis, the order to issue process came to be made. It is not clear as to whether the cases have proceeded an inch forward after that -Held it is seen that the trial of the original cases in the criminal court has been unduly delayed by several proceedings at the threshold and the issues are agitated and re-agitated at considerable cost of time. An order imposing special costs was not made in view of the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had bona fide carried on the legal battle till this stage. However, now the injunction against further proceedings in the trial court being vacated, the proceedings in the trial court shall be given due priority and the cases shall have to be expeditiously heard, preferably on day-to-day basis, and should hopefully be disposed within a reasonable period of six months. As this judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court today, learned counsel Mr. Keshwani sought under Article 134-A of the Constitution, the certificate that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court). The request made on behalf of the petitioners was objected by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel again sought to argue at length and insisted upon recording his argument that the certificate of the nature, in the facts and circumstances, required to be issued as the case involved substantial question of law of general importance and the conflicts in the judgments of the Supreme Court apparent to him were required to be examined by the Supreme Court. However, in fact, the petitions are decided on the basis of law settled by the Supreme Court and no substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution has arisen. Therefore, the oral application for certificate made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected -Petition is Rejected.