TYTAN ORGANICS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of petitions, since common question of facts and law arises, they are, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) ALL the petitions are filed by the original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. They seek quashing of the respective complaints which are pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Petitioner No.1 is company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are its Directors. Respondent No.2 is original complainant. He has filed several cheque bouncing complaints before the learned Magistrate which are pending. Petitioners herein are shown to be accused No.1, 2 and 3 in such complaints. It is an admitted position that the cheques in question were signed by the original accused No.5. In other words, neither the petitioner No.2, nor petitioner No.3 are signatories to the cheques in question.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners contended that; (1) Signatory of the cheques - original accused No.5 had filed individual quashing petitions before this Court. All these petitions came to be allowed by order dated 19.04.2010 passed in Special Criminal Application No.2118 to 2143 of 2009 and connected matters. (2) That the reasons stated for dishonour of the cheques were 'no image found' or 'drawnee's signature is incomplete or illegible'. The reasons are not sufficient to make out a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case (I) Vinod Tanna and another v. Zaher Siddiqui and others, (2002) 7 SCC 541 and decision of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mustafa Surka v. Jay Ambe Enterprise and Anr., 2010 (1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 758. (3) It was contended that neither the petitioner No.2 nor the petitioner No.3 were signatories to the cheques. Respondent No.2 had failed to demonstrate how they were involved in the day to day functioning of the company and responsible to the working of the company. Under the circumstances, question of their vicarious liability would not arise.