SUN BRIGHT EXPORTERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are facing prosecution for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No.11373 of 2006, on the file of the Honourable VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, seek to quash the proceedings against them.

(2.) THE first petitioner is a partnership firm by name M/S. Sun Bright Exporters and the petitioners 2 to 5 are the partners thereof. THE complainant along with two others was an employee in the leather industry run by the first accused firm for a long period. THE complainant informs that the first accused firm itself was closed in the month of October 2005 without any notice to the employees. THE employees were deprived of employment since 30.10.2005, and were not provided suitable compensation which was their legal entitlement. THE first accused having promised to pay the employment benefits to the complainant and the fellow workers, and having failed to effect payment to them as promised, issued a cheque bearing No.521762 dated 15.07.2006 in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant requesting him to share the amount along with the other two employees. THE complainant was to get compensation in a sum of Rs. 90,000/- while the other two sums of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively. THE cheque was presented for collection on 15.07.2006 and returned unpaid on 17.07.2006 for the reason "Funds Insufficient". THE complainant issued a statutory notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on 28.07.2006 demanding that payment be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. THE complainant states that the accused acknowledged the receipt of notice on 02.08.2006. A reply notice denying liability had been caused on behalf of the accused. Stating that the first accused is a partnership firm, the accused 2 to 5 are the partners of the first accused firm, that they are directly involved in the day to day affairs of the first accused firm and the second accused is the signatory of the said dishonored cheque, the complaint has been lodged against all the petitioners.

(3.) ON perusal of the decision cited above, this Court finds that the decision thereon arose on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be taken as informing an inviolable rule that once trial commences before the lower Court, this court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., even in a fit case.