SADHU RAM SINGLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of Crl.M.(M) Nos. 4492,.4731, 4673, 4732 and 4173 of 2000 filed by the same petitioner seeking quashment of complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act' ).

(2.) In Crl.M.(M) 4492/2000 quashment is sought of 7 complaints filed by Raunaq Finance Ltd. In Crl.M.(M) 4731/2000 quashment is sought of one complaint filed by Daewoo Motors Ltd while in Crl.M.(M) 4673 of one complaint filed by Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Fortis Financial Services Ltd is the complainant of the complaint whereof quashment, is sought by filing Crl.M.(M) 4732/2000. In Crl.M.(M) 4173/2000 quashment is sought of a complaint filed by DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd. In complaints filed by said Raunaq Finance Ltd, Daewoo Motors Ltd, Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Ltd and DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd, the petitioner has been impleaded as accused No.2. In the complaint filed by Fortis Financial Services Ltd, petitioner has been impleaded as accused No.1. Cheques which were dishonoured, in the complaints filed by Raunaq Finance Ltd and DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd were towards lease rentals. Dishonoured cheques in complaints filed by Daewoo Motors Ltd, Dalmia Cement( Bharat) Ltd and Forfcis Financial Services Ltd were towards part payment of inter-corporate deposits. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Rom Industries Ltd for whom a Provisional Liquidator has been appointed by Punjab & Haryana High Court; payments of dishonoured cheques in question were not made to the said complainants despite service of demand notices on said company and directors thereof including the petitioner.

(3.) Submission advanced by Sh.S.K.Singla for petitioner was that it was the Joint liability of all 7 directors of Rom Industries Ltd to repay the amounts of dishonoured cheques. Barring one complaint, in complaints filed by Raunaq Finance Ltd 5 directors had not been arrayed as accused. Although in one of the complaints filed by said Raunaq Finance Ltd., 3 directors including the petitioner were impleaded as accused 2 to 4 and in one complaint filed by DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd all the directors were impleaded as accused 2 to 8 but the director impleaded as accused No.4 in the complaint filed by Raunaq Finance Ltd and directors arrayed as accused 4 to 8 in the complaint filed by DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd were later on given up by said two complainants. Reliance was placed on the decision in Saj, Flight Services (CP) Ltd vs. P.T.Gopala Raja, Vol.88 Company Cases 344. Submission is,however, without any merit. In the decision in Sheoratan Agarwal and a not her vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1985) 1 SCR 719 which was quoted with approval in the decision in Anil Handa vs . Indian Aery lie Ltd. 2000 Cri.L.J.373, one of the points which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was if the Managing Director and Production Manager of a company against whom complaint was made by State of Madhya Pradesh through the Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Dewas for violation of clause 2(c)(i ) and 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 and clause 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Price Exhibition and Price Control) Order, 1977 read with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, could be legally prosecuted unless the company itself was prosecuted, while dealing with that point after extracting section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act it was held: