REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.360-377 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 3008-3025 of 2008)

Harshendra Kumar D.

…. Appellant

Versus

Rebatilata Koley Etc.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2.

These 18 appeals, by special leave, are directed against

the common judgment and order dated September 6, 2007 passed by

Calcutta High Court whereby 18 criminal revision applications filed by

the appellant for quashing the proceedings initiated by the

1

complainants in 18 complaint cases under Section 138 read with

Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short, ‘NI Act’)

against him have been dismissed.

3.

The brief facts are these. The complainants were

interested in business relationship with Rifa Healthcare (India) Pvt.

Ltd. (for short, ‘the Company’) for the sale of bio-ceramic products.

The complainants, for the orders they had placed, issued demand

drafts in favour of the Company. It appears that the Company had not

delivered the products ordered by the complainants and accordingly

they asked the Company for return of their money. On April 30, 2004,

the Company issued 18 cheques bearing Nos. (i) 000843 for Rs.

30,000/-; (ii) 00870 for Rs. 40,000/-; (iii) 000845 for Rs. 30,000/-; (iv)

000852 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (v) 00842 for Rs. 60,000/-; (vi) 000862 for

Rs. 40,000/-; (vii) 000834 for Rs. 60,000/-; (viii) 000572 for Rs.

40,000/-; (ix) 000827 for Rs. 30,350/-; (x) 000854 for Rs. 3,00,000/-;

(xi) 000826 for Rs. 60,000/-; (xii) 000855 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xiii)

000857 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xiv) 000858 for Rs. 3,00,000/-; (xv)

000841 for Rs. 60,000/-; (xvi) 000871 for Rs. 40,000/-; (xvii) 000568

for Rs. 40,000/- and (xviii) for Rs. 60,130/- drawn on UTI Bank Ltd.,

2

Jayanagar, Bangalore in favour of the complainants. These 18

cheques were dishonoured by the Bank/s on presentation.

4.

In the month of December, 2004, the complainants filed

18 complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act.

For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer to the

complaint no. 14512 of 2004. In the complaint, besides the Company,

the appellant was arraigned as accused No. 3. It was alleged in the

complaint that the Managing Director and the two Directors (including

the appellant) were responsible for day-to-day affairs of the Company

and that it was on their assurance that the complainant issued

demand draft in favour of the Company and when the products of the

Company were not received by the complainant, she contacted the

accused persons and told them that she could not continue business

with them and asked for return of her money. Accordingly, for and on

behalf of the Company, in discharge of the existing liability, an

account payee cheque was issued but the cheque was returned by

the complainant’s banker on presentation with the endorsement

‘insufficient fund’. The complainant then sent legal notice asking the

accused persons to pay the amount of cheque within 15 days from

3

the date of the receipt of the notice but despite service of notice, no

payment has been made.

5.

The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons

to all the accused persons including the appellant.

6.

The appellant challenged the proceedings initiated by the

complainants against him by filing 18 revision applications under

Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

1973 (for short, `Code’) before the Calcutta High Court. In these

revision applications, notices were issued to the complainants. On

behalf of the appellant, the principal contention canvassed was that

the appellant was appointed as Director of the Company on August

27, 2003. He resigned from the directorship on March 2, 2004 which

was accepted by the Board of Directors on that day