TRIDENT (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present Revision Application, the petitioner original complainant has challenged the order dated 21.11.2003 passed below Exh.2 in Criminal Case No. 1012 of 2002, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Court No. 11. Ahmedabad granting discharge application filed by the Respondent Nos..2, 3 & 4 original Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and acquitted them for the charges alleged against them.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-complainant is that the petitioner is the limited company and for the purpose of its business, the complainant - company used to advance monies to the Accused No. 1 - firm. The Accused Nos. 2, 3,4, 5 & 6 are the partners of Accused No. 1 - firm. It is the case of the complainant that the accused have assured the complainant that the monies advanced by the complainant, from time to time, would be adjusted by purchasing D.H.P.B. Licences of various values and if the licences are not given to the complainant by the accused then the accused would return the money to the complainant by way of cheques. It is the case of the complainant that the Accounts Department-. of the Accused No. 1 firm by letter dated 9.5.2002 confirmed that the balance of the complainant company is due and payable by Accused No. 1 is Rs.1.89,83,656/- and there were some discrepancy in their books of accounts. It is alleged that on account of the dues of the complainant, the Accused No.1 firm issued in all 9 cheques of different dates i.e. between 1st October, 2001 to 7th December. 2001 totalling to Rs. 1,90,000/-. The said cheques when presented by the complainant, the same were returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Thereupon, the complainant issued Notice to the accused by registered Post A.D. as well as by U.P.C. On 26.4.2002, which appeared to have been received by the accused on 30.4.2002. However, the accused have not made the payment and given false and evasive reply. The reply to the notice dated 8.5.2002 has been given by the Accused No. 2, whereas the reply to the notice dated 9.5.2002 has been given by the Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Therefore, the complaint has been filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Sections 420 read with Sections 114 and 120(B) of LP. Code before, the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

(3.) Thereafter, the present Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 - original Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 have filed application for discharge on the ground that they arc not taking any part m the administration of Accused No. 1 -- firm, which is also mentioned in the Partnership Deed and they are sleeping partners. The learned Magistrate has considered the said application for discharge and acquitted the present Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 from the offence alleged against them. Against she said order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad, the original complainant has preferred this Revision Application.