JAUSS POLYMERS LIMITED Vs. SAWHNEY BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Failing in its all previous attempts in scuttling the criminal proceedings launched by the respondent for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) the petitioners in this criminal revision have now sought quashing of the notice served by the trial court upon them on 3.5.2002 under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Briefly atated the facts are that the respondent has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner on the averment, in short, that the petitioner no.1 in the course of its business had taken a loan of Ra.25 lakhs from the respondent no.1 bearing interast at the rate of 14% per annum and the petitioner no.1 company in discharge of ita debts had iaaued two cheques one dated 20.2.1996 for Ra.25 lakhs and the other dated 8.11.1995 for Ra.89,753/-. The firat cheque was towards repayment of the principal amount. The aecond cheque was towarda the amount of interest at the rate of 14% per annum accruing on the principal sum upto 20.2.1996. Both these chequea were post dated. The petitioner company allowed the encashment of the cheque of Rs.89,753/- which was towards interest but did not allow encashment of the cheque of Ra.25 lakhs which was towards the repayment of the principal aum. The respondent no.1 has filed a winding up petition against the petitioner no.l company. Within the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of bouncing of the cheque of Rs.25 lakhs notice of demand dated 18.3.1996 waa aerved upon the petitioner no.l which has failed to make the payment within 15 daya from the date of the receipt of the notice. The reapondent complainant alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 138 and ahould be puniahed for it.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the order of eummoning before thie court which petition wae diamissed by order dated 11.8.2000. It was puraued in an SLP which waa also diamiaeed by the Supreme court on 13.9.2000. The petitioner moved another application before the Additional Seaeione Judge who waa trying the caae for diamiaaing the complaint on the ground that on the date of bouncing of the cheque there waa no existing debt or liability againat the accuead and thia ground was not taken in the earlier petition, therefore, the aummoning order muat be recalled. The application was diemiaeed. The notice under Section 251 Cr.PC has now been framed and eerved on the reepondent on 3.5.2002. The petitioner has challenged this notice as well in the inatant proceedinge.