The failure to array a company as an accused in dishonour of cheque cases does not invalidate cognizance if the individual was responsible for the company's transactions.

Judgment : 

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The Petitioner, namely Rajendra Swami, Director of Right Step Media Services Private Limited, has filed this application challenging the legality of the order of cognizance dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in connection with 1CC Case No. 746 of 2016, wherein the learned court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and directed the Petitioner to appear and answer the accusation, initially by issuance of a bailable warrant and subsequently by issuance of an N.B.W. vide order dated 30.08.2017.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Complainant is the proprietor of the firm, namely M/s. Fast Communication, an INS-accredited agency engaged in the media publicity business throughout India, having its office at Markat Nagar, C.D.A., Cuttack. The accused is a company in the name and style of M/s. Right Step Media Services Pvt. Ltd., represented through its Director, Rajendra Kumar Swami, having its office near Mataji Mandir, Soorsagar Lake, Bikaner, Rajasthan, who is also the Director of Docoss Multimedia Private Ltd., engaged in the business of media activation and sale of mobile handsets. Pursuant to a mutual agreement between the parties, the said companies appointed the Complainant, i.e., M/s. Fast Communication, as their authorised advertisement agency for creating and publishing advertisements of Docoss Mobile and other media companies for a valid period of two years from the date of publication of the first advertisement, i.e., 27th April, 2016.

3. According to the complaint, one of the Directors, Mr. Rajendra Swami @ Rajendra Kumar Swami, requested the authorised staff, namely Mr. Manish Ahuja, of the Complainant firm to publish advertisements in different newspapers circulated throughout India. Pursuant to the release order issued by the said accused, the advertisements were published in Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan Patrika, Indian Express, and Dainik Bhaskar’s web portal within the stipulated time.

4. The aforesaid advertisements were published at a cost of Rs.88,50,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and, in discharge of the said liability, four cheques were issued, namely:

(i) Cheque No. 874240 dated 15.06.2016 for Rs.56,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only),

(ii) Cheque No. 874239 dated 05.05.2016 for Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only),

(iii) Cheque No. 000051 dated 10.05.2016 for Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only), and

(iv) Cheque No. 000052 dated 20.06.2016 for Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), totalling Rs.88,50,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), drawn on UCO Bank, Bikaner Branch, Bikaner, Rajasthan, in favour of the Complainant.

5. Out of the said four cheques, two, namely Cheque No. 874239 dated 05.05.2016 for Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) and Cheque No. 000051 dated 10.05.2016 for Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only), amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), were presented before the Complainant’s bank and honoured. However, the remaining two cheques, i.e., Cheque No. 874240 dated 15.06.2016 for Rs.56,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and Cheque No. 000052 dated 20.06.2016 for Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), totalling Rs.68,50,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), when presented before the payee’s bank, i.e., IDBI Bank, CDA Branch, Sector-9, CDA, Cuttack, on 13.07.2016, were dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. The paye