K CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. CHARLES INDIA LIMITED BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. seeking for calling the records in connection with Criminal Revision Petition No. 394 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions judge/fast Track, Court IV, Bangalore and to set aside the order dated 17-8-2004 and also the order passed by the XX Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore dated 5-8-2004 on the application filed by the petitioners under Section 255 of the Cr. P. C. in CC No. 23005 of 1997 and to allow the said application. Brief facts are:

(2.) THE respondent has filed a complaint against these petitioners who are arrayed as accused 11 and 12 along with ten others, for the alleged offence under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the complaint it is alleged that the 1st accused is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 the 2nd accused is the Managing Director of the said Company and the registered office of the Company is located at Mumbai. The accused-Company is conducting business in dairy and dairy products and accused 3 to 10 are the Directors of the 1st accused-Company. Accused 11 and 12-petitioners herein, are the employees of the 1st accused-Company. It is stated that accused 2 to 10 were in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company at the time of commission of the alleged offence. It is further alleged that all the accused jointly conspired and connived in committing the offence as contemplated under the negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated that on behalf of the 1st accused-Company, the other accused availed the facility of discounting the Bill of Exchange against the cheques paid by their suppliers in the course of business, from the complainant. The complainant-respondent had discounted two bills of exchange raised on the accused-Company-one No. 112, dated 26-9-1996 for Rs. 2,50,000/- by c. S. Printers, Bombay and another No. 117, dated 12-10-1996 for Rs. 51,42,500/- by C. S. Printers, Bombay. The accused, in repayment of the discounted bills on the above account, is said to have issued two cheques dated 23-11-1996 for Rs. 25,74,000/- and Rs. 26,92,800/- drawn on canara Bank, Trinity Circle, Bangalore with a request to the complainant-respondent to present the same for realisation during the month of March 1997 and assured payment. As per the understanding, when the cheques were presented for realisation through their bankers m/s. State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Bangalore, both the cheques were dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, the complainant is said to have issued registered notices dated 15-3-1997 and 17-3-1997. Notices were said to be issued through certificate of posting also calling upon the accused to make payment within fifteen days. Since there is violation on the part of the accused persons to make payment, complaint is said to have been filed alleging that accused 11 and 12 who are the petitioners herein, are the authorised signatories of the 1st. accused-Company; that all other accused were in-charge of the affairs and were aware of the financial transaction of the Company, the operation of the Bank account and availability of funds at the time of issuing cheques and in spite of the same, willfully and with an intention to defraud the complainant, two cheques were issued and thereby the accused have committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.

(3.) THE complaint was presented before the XX Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. It appears that cognizance was taken and thereafter, the matter was posted for sworn statement during 1997. Subsequently, during pendency of the matter before the XX additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, an application is said to have been filed by the present petitioners who are accused 11 and 12 in the complaint under Section 255 of the Cr. P. C. seeking for acquittal. The said application has been contested and thereafter, order has been passed on 8-8-2004 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners imposing costs against which revision petition was preferred before the additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track, Court IV in Cri. R. P. No. 394 of 2004 which also came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition.