ASHWIN C MUTHIAH Vs. MULTIPACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/a-2 to A-4 in S. T. C. No. 509 of 1999 on the file of the J. M. No. 5, Coimbatore, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in Crl. M. P. No. 5059 of 1999 dated august 23, 1999.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as others for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant is a proprietary concern. The first accused is a public limited compaany, in which accused Nos. 2 to 4 are directors and they are in charge of the day-to- day affairs of the first accused - company. A-5 is employed as general manager at the Coimbatore branch of the first accused-company. A-l -company represented by A-5 issued the cheque in question dated October 28, 1998, and the cheque was dishonoured and the factum of dishonour was informed on November 27, 1998. The complainant issued a notice dated December 2, 1998, to all the accused calling upon the accused to pay the value of the cheque within 15 days. A-l to A-3 received the notice on December 4, 1998, and the notice issued to A-4 was returned unanswered with the endorsement "not claimed". They have not sent any reply to the notice also. The accused have issued the cheque towards discharge of liability, which is a legally enforceable debt. The factum of dishonour and the act of the accused amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and as such they are liable to be punished.

(3.) PETITIONER Nos. A-2 to A-4 filed Crl. M. P. No. 5059 of 1999 to drop the proceedings against them and discharge them from the case and also to recall and cancel the summons issued to them. They contended that they are impleaded in the capacity as directors. A-2 and A-4 had resigned from the board of directors with effect from November 19, 1998. The necessary form had also been filed with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, the alleged notice under Section 138 was issued on December 2, 1998, and the cause of action for the complaint had arisen only after the expiry of 15 days and at that the petitioners were not the directors of the company and they cannot said to be responsible. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not served with the summons issued by this court in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Service of summons ought to have been effected in strict accordance with law. There is also no averment in the complaint to the effect that these petitioners are in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company and on all these grounds further proceedings have to be dropped.