The court affirmed that a cheque issued in an individual's capacity does not require the company to be impleaded as an accused, and the complaint was not time-barred.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment dated 28th November, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th February, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 968 of 2018.

2. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that complainant Renu Sharma filed a complaint against Om Prakash Sharma with these averments that the husband of the complainant is the retired Senior Deputy Director (SAIL), Bokaro General Hospital. The accused Om Prakash Sharma was running a registered company in the name and style of Pioneer New Era Industries Limited situated at Bhootnath Mandir, Dumarjor, Dhanbad Road, Chas, Bokaro. The accused along with Ram Murat Sharma and his wife Malti Devi, who was acquainted with complainant came to the residence of the complainant and persuaded to invest Rs.10 lac in his company under a scheme telling the same very lucrative. At the first instant, the complainant and her husband expressed their unwillingness but on the insistence of the accused, the complainant had invested Rs.9,80,000/- through cheque no. 10524 and Rs.20,000/- in cash in the aforesaid company. The said cheque of Rs.9,80,000/- was encashed by the accused/appellant on 10th – 11th November, 2012 and thereafter the accused acknowledged the receipt certificate of the company in the name of complainant. On demand made by the complainant and her husband, the accused issued a cheque of Rs.14,00,000/- in favour of complainant of Axis Bank, B.S. City vide cheque no. 035245 dated 15th June, 2018 of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the principal amount and Rs.4,00,000/- towards monthly payment to discharge his liability. When the complainant presented the said cheque to her banker, the same got dishonoured with endorsement “insufficient funds” on 6th July, 2018. The complainant gave two legal notice through his lawyer on 1st August, 2018 on his residential address as well as the official address which were received by the accused on 2nd August, 2018 and 9th August, 2018 respectively. Despite service of notice till date no payment was made by the accused to the complainant and thereafter the complaint was filed before the court of Magistrate concerned.

3. On this complaint, the learned court of Magistrate took cognizance and the accused Om Prakash Sharma appeared. His statement of accusation was also recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

4. On behalf of the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint in oral evidence examined C.W.-1 Sachchidanand Sharma, C.W.-2 Renu Sharma and C.W.-3 Shiv Murat Sharma.

5. In documentary evidence on behalf of the complainant adduced the passbook of Bank of India Ext.1, a cheque no. 035245 dated 15th June, 2018 of Rs.14,00,000/- of Axis Bank Ltd., return memo dated 6th July, 2018 Ext.3, copy of legal notice dated 1st August, 2018 Ext.4, two postal receipts Exts.5 and 5/1 and an acknowledgement receipt dated 11th December, 2012 of Pioneer New Era Industrial Ltd.

6. On behalf of the accused in defence evidence examined A.W.-1 Satish Kumar Sharma and A.W.-2 Dinesh Kumar Sharma. In documentary evidence filed the photocopy of the reply notice.

7. The learned trial court after hearing rival submissions of the parties, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence 17th February, 2022 against Om Prakash Sharma and sentenced accordingly.

8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of 17th February, 2022, the petitioner/convict Om Prakash Sharma preferred Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2022. The same was also dismissed by the court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide judgment dated 28th November, 2022 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.

9. Aggrieved from both these judgments, the i