APPOLLOFIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21. 3. 2002 whereby he has rejected an application of petitioner for recalling the summoning order and discharging the petitioner in a criminal complaint instituted by the respondent for his prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act ).

(2.) THE contention of Counsel for petitioner is that petitioner No. 2 Abha gorawara is the sole proprietress of petitioner No. l concern and that the cheque which is the foundation for launching prosecution under Section 138 of the act does not bear her signature. It is further contended that even otherwise shared Gorawara and Puneet Gorawara with whom the respondent had dealings have already repaid Rs. 25,00,000/- to the complainant.

(3.) THE respondent sought prosecution of the two petitioners for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act on the averment that in September, 1996 Sharad Gorawara and Puneet Gorawara, partners of M/s Gorawara and Co. , share broker in Delhi Stock Exchange, and also Directors of M/s gorawara Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. , offered to arrange intercorporate deposit (ICD) of 90 days maturity in a reputed company Apollo Tyres Ltd. The respondent gave three cheques of the total value of Rs. 25,00,000/- all dated 3. 10. 1996. In December, 1996 Sharad Gorawara and Puneet Gorawara gave the respondent a cheque dated 01. 01. 1997 for Rs. 25. 00 lacs in discharge of the liability created by inter-corporate deposit. Later it was discovered that the amount of RS. 25. 00 lacs which was given for depositing in Apollo Finance of apollo Tyres Ltd. of Raunaq Group the amount was deposited in the Bank account of petitioner No. 1, of which petitioner. No. 2 was the proprietress. The cheque dated 01. 01. 1997 on presentation was dishonoured by the Banker of the petitioners Since the amount was received by the petitioners, therefore, the cheque in question was also issued for repayment of the amount by the petitioner accused. The petitioner, therefore, committed offence under Section 138 of the Act besides committing offence of cheating.