UNITED INK AND VARNESH COMPANY LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this judgment. The detailed facts of only one petition Crl. M.(M) No. 1432/2000 are recapitulated.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 [M/s. Howard Ink. Co. (P) Ltd.] and respondent No. 3 (Shri S.R. Narula, the Managing Director of M/s. Howard Ink Co. Pvt. Ltd.) issued cheque dated 31.1.2000 in the sum of Rs 6,75,000.00 which was dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter the petitioner sent a statutory notice. Despite the notice dated 9.3.2000 when the payment was not made, the petitioner (United Ink & Varnish Co. Ltd.) filed a complaint under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 28.4.2000, the case was adjourned by the Court for recording of the complainant's evidence for 2.4.2001.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the entire purpose of filing the complaint is defeated, if the Trial Court gives an 11 months long date for recording of the complainant's evidence. In another matter Madan Agarwal v. Auric Agencies (P) Ltd., Cri. M.(M) No. 3839/2000 (pertaining to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) the Trial Court has adjourned the case for a period of 19 months for further proceedings. This petition is filed primarily to bring to the notice of this Court that the Trial Courts are not adjudicating these complaints expeditiously and consequently the entire legislative purpose and object of incorporating these provisions stand defeated.