Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.H.WAGHELA
ROHIT CHUNUBHAI MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO.LIMITED - Respondent
CRI.M.A.857 of 1998
Decided On : 01/17/2004
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 and 114 – Insufficient funds – Offence of Dishonored of cheque – Cheating or Abetment – Allegations in complaint suggesting knowledge and consent of petitioners as directors of accused company in purchasing huge stocks of raw materials from the complainant and issuing number of cheques towards payment or for securing payment without actual payment or realization of the cheques being arranged for – Prima facie, it would be difficult to assume that cheques in the sum exceeding Rs. 5 crores could have been issued by the persons in charge of company without the knowledge or connivance of the board of directors – The course of events culled out from the record, prima facie, lends credence to allegations of complainant that it was induced and deceived into delivering goods on credit against security of cheques which bounced when presented for realization – Held, Goods having been supplied by the complainant at Vadodara and amount of the cheques having been payable, after notice, at Vadodara, Court thereat had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. 10. 2 in the above circumstances, the impugned order of the trial Court rejecting the application (Exh. 25) for dropping the cases is legal, justified and does not require any interference. In fact, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in JOHN THOMAS (supra), the original application (Exh. 25) would not have lied – Since the petitioners have obviously taken recourse to repetitive agitation of the same controversies through multiplicity of proceedings and put the complainant to unnecessary and avoidable expenses, not to mention clogging of the Court, it is necessary and in the interest of justice that suitable order for payment of costs is made – The revisional jurisdiction as also the plenary inherent powers of this Court could be invoked for preventing abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice or if a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned – In the facts of the present case, the proceedings appear to have been carried on for years by the petitioners, invoking those powers, to defeat the legal process and cause failure of justice by causing inordinate delay and unbearable costs. Therefore, each of the petitions and applications of each of the petitioners is rejected and each of the petitioner is ordered to pay to the original complainant by way of costs – Application/petition and interim relief is vacated with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the original criminal cases as expeditiously as practicable. Criminal Misc. Applications – Applications rejected. (Paras 10 and 11)
( 1 ) ALL these matters involving common questions present a study in how and how long a criminal proceeding can be stalled at the threshold, can be converted into a cluster of cumbersome cases and, in effect, into a punishment for the complainant.
( 2 ) SIMPLE basic and relevant facts of the complaints are that the complainant, Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. (GSFC), appears to have supplied goods on credit to M/s. Garware Nylon Ltd. , accused No. 14, and received cheques towards payment or security. When two cheques dated 15. 11. 1994 of the total amount of Rs. 12,19,111/- and other cheques were returned unpaid on the ground of "insufficient funds" and payments were not made even after legal notice, elaborate complaints, including the complaint dated 13. 6. 1995, were filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and, after recording statement of the Marketing Manager, who had filed the complaints for himself and on behalf of the Company, summons returnable on 26. 7. 1995 were ordered to be issued to all the accused (Nos. 1 to 14) for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (ni Act for short) and sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The order for issuing summons appears to have been challenged in revision, being Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 131 to 172 of 1995, which were dismissed on 21. 3. 1996. That common judgment and order was challenged in two Special Criminal Applications in this Court and those applications were permitted to be withdrawn on 2. 8. 1996 to enable the petitioners to move an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Then, the application dated 17. 8. 1996 (Exh. 25) appears to have been filed with a prayer to drop the proceedings and that application was rejected on 21. 8. 1997. 2. 1 out of the group of 14 accused persons, which include the chairman and managing director, other directors and general manager (finance) of the accused No. 14 company, the accused No. 6 is the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5239 of 1997, mainly praying quashing of the process issued to him in the original complaints and quashing of the order dated 21. 8. 1997 referred to hereinabove. Seven other accused persons have separately approached this Court by way of two special criminal applications which were converted into Criminal Revision Application Nos. 168 and 169 of 1998. Similarly, the other Criminal Revision Applications, being 170 to 251 of 1998, have joined the group along with the first mentioned Criminal Misc. Application No. 5239 of 1997 and all the matters were, at the request of the learned counsel, treated as cognate matters, heard together and are disposed by this common judgment. 2. 2 it must be noted at this stage that, after obtaining ad-interim stay against further proceedings in the original Special Criminal Application No. 1161 of 1997 on 15. 9. 1997, this group of matters have been proceeded for final disposal only after vacation of the interim relief by order dated 25. 9. 2003 wherein reluctance of the petitioner to proceed was noted. Thus, the original complaints dated 13. 6. 1995 about dishonour of cheques issued in November 1994 are, after eight years, yet to proceed beyond the service of summons.
( 3 ) THE original detailed complaints specifically allege that accused No. 1 is the chairman and managing director, accused Nos. 2 to 11 are the directors, accused No. 12 is the director (finance) looking after financial affairs and accused No. 13 is the general manager (finance) of the company, which is accused No. 14. It is alleged that the complainant company used to give normal credit facility to the accused. That the policies of the accused company were decided by the board of directors and implemented by them through their subordinate officers. That the accused initially tried to impress the complainant by paying regularly for the supplies made to them and tried to create conf
SupremeToday
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
