MANAGING DIRECTOR JINDAL PRAXAIR OXYGEN COMPANY LIMITED TORANGALLU SANDUR TALUK HOSPET Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENTRY TAX HOSPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the accused in C. C. No. 146 of 1999 on the file of the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magis-trate First Class, Hospet, seeking for quashing the above case registered against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru-ments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act" ).

(2.) THE respondent herein filed a complaint in the Trial Court alleging that the Finance Manager of M/s. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited, situated at Torangallu who is accused 2 in the case has issued a cheque dated December 31, 1998 for Rs. 2,00,00,000 towards part pay-ment of arrears of entry tax and the said cheque when presented by the respondent for encashment in the State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch, hospet, on January 4, 1999 has been returned to the respondent by the manager, State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch, Hospet, with the Bank endorsement dated January 12, 1999. It is also alleged in the said com-plaint that the said cheque has been returned unpaid for the reason that the cheque is to be signed jointly by the Finance Manager as well as by the present petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the above com-pany and the company seal is to be put. According to the allegations in the complaint, accused 2-Finance Manager, is the authorised signatory to issue the cheque and sign on behalf of the above company. In spite of a notice dated January 23, 1999 issued to both the accused intimating about the dishonour of the said cheque and calling upon them to make payment, they have not complied with the said payment. The respon-dent therefore, filed the above complaint.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is only in cases where the cheque issued has been dishonoured for any of the grounds mentioned under Section 138 of the Act, such as that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank, that the drawer of the cheque will be liable for the offence under the said provi-sion. Since in the instant case, the cheque has not been dishonoured for any of the above said grounds and it has been dishonoured only on the ground that the cheque does not bear the signature of the present peti-tioner, who is the Managing Director of the company and that it does not bear the seal of the company, no case is made out for the offence under section 138 of the Act. Thus, the above facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose any grounds to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. I, therefore, find that the learned Magis-trate was not justified in registering the case against the petitioner and in ordering for issue of process to him. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C. C. No. 146 of 1999 are hereby quashed.