SHAILENDRA TIWARI Vs. MEENAKSHI ANHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 16th January, 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate where by the applications filed for dropping the proceedings by them were dismissed and quashing of complaint case No.4193/99 filed by respondent No.1.

(2.) Submission advanced by Sh.H.S.Phool ka for petitioners was that unless there is aversment in the complaints and/or evidence in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the "Act') person who is merely a director of company, cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Act. According to him, in view of averments as made in the complaint and statement recorded on 3rd December, 1999 of respondent No.1/complainant (CM-l), the trial Magistrate was unjustified in declining to drop the proceedings against the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Smt.Naqawwa, Vs. veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1947, Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs. P.T.V.Ramanujachari and Anr.. 1997 (2) Crimes 658, Smt. Sharda Agiarwal and Ors. Vs. Add.Chief Metropolitan Miagistrate & Anr.. 1992 (1) Crimes 812, Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra & .Anr .. Vs. M/s.N.K.Metals and Anr.. 75 (1998) DLT 155. Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs. Shitui H.Chanchani and Anr.... (1998) 7 SCC 698. Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Ledo,. Tea Company Limited. 1998 (4) Crimes 270, Saraswathy Amma and Anr. Vs. Swil Limited and Anr.. 2000 (52) DRJ 261, K.P.G.Nair Vs. M/s.Jindal Menthol India Ltd. JT 2000 (Supp1) SC 519, Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. vs. state of Gujarat and Anr,. 2000 (3) Civil Court cases 126 (Gujarat) and D.chandra Reddy Vs. Ghourisetti prabhahar and Anr 2000 (3) Civil Court Cases 315 (AP). On the other hand, it was urged by Ms.Anu Narula appearing for respondent No.I that at the time of issuing two cheques in question, the petitioner No-1 was working a a vice Chairman-oum-wholetime Director while petitioners 2 & 3 as wholetime Directors in Ac Laboratories Ltd. and a wholetime director is virtually a Managing Director. My attention, was invited to the notices dated 26th December, 1998, 9th April, 1999 and 11th June, 1999 got sent by respondent No.1 complainant to the petitioners, para No.4 of the reply filed to petitioners' application for dropping proceedings as also photostat copy of the relevant extract from 13th annual report of said Ace Laboratories Ltd. As part of said submission, it was further urged that the petitioners even had admitted liability for payment of the amounts of cheques in question and sought time for payment as is evident from the orders dated 1st May, 2000', 19th May, 2000 and 18th July, 2000 passed in Cri.M.(M)No.3865/99 filed by the petitioners on 17th December, 1999. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in Anil Hada Vs. Indian Acrylic Ltd. (2000) 1 SCC 1, Natesha Singh and Anr. vs. M/s.Klen and Marshalls of Manufacturers and Exporterg Pvt. Ltd.. 1999 Cri.L.J. 2693, Sunil Sareen Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.. 83 (2000) DLT 380, A.K.Goenka Vs. State and Anr.. 87 (2000) DLT 190, Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.. AIR 1999 SC 1216, Suman Sethi Vs. Ajay K.churiwal and Anr. (2000) 2 comp.L.J. 40 (sc), Cranex Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. and Anr.. (2000) 4 Comp.L.J. 206 (SC). B.Manipal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.. (2001) 2 Comp.L.J. 126 (AP), Smt. M.Sivakami Vs. Bharat Ginning and Oil Mill Factory and Anr.. 2000 Cri.L.J. 1043 and Gyan Chand Kotia Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd.(IREDA). 83 (2000) DLT 447.

(3.) Section 141 of the Act which is material, reads as followas-