HARYANA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Vs. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment three revision petitions shall be decided. Parties are common; Haryana Petrochemical Ltd. and its Managing Director Rajiv Aggarwal are the revisionists before this Court; the respondent/complainant is Indian Petrochemicals Ltd.

(2.) THE fact of these cases disclose that the complainant company i.e. Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. had business dealings with the petitioner company i.e. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. They were dealing in the sale and purchase of chemicals. Complainant company was manufacturing and supplying the chemicals DMT and MEG which the petitioner company was purchasing from the complainant company. The cheques given in lieu of these transactions had been dishonoured. The Magistrate on the basis of the evidence led before him had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. The Sessions Judge had endorsed this finding and the order of sentence in each of the individual cases as noted supra.

(3.) THE last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners shall be answered first. This relates to the authorization given to Deepak Rai Srivastava (PW -3) to file the present complaint; submission being that this complaint was admittedly filed in September, 1995 on the basis of an authorization letter (dated 26.9.1995) given to Deepak Rai Srivastava by the company but there was no resolution accompanying this authorization; the power of attorney Ex.PW -3/B (dated 23.3.1999) exhibited in the testimony of PW -3 clearly shows that this document is of the year 1999 and as such the complaint filed in September, 1995 being without any valid authorization necessarily be treated as non est. This submission has been refuted and rightly so.