KRISHAN BAI Vs. ARTI PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C. No. 46 of 1990, pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by the Act 66 of 1988, on a complaint given by the respondent herein, invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the above proceedings. THE allegation in the complaint is that, for liabilities arising out of supply of pictorial calendars by the respondent to Surya Advertising P. Ltd., whose sister concern is Mudra Graphic P. Ltd., the petitioner being the managing director of both the concerns, representing that funds in Surya Advertising P. Ltd. were not sufficient and that there was sufficient funds in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd., issued a cheque for Rs. 20, 000 in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. account.

(2.) THE cheque when presented by the respondent through the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Sivakasi, was returned unpaid for want of funds with an endorsement by the bank "refer to drawer". THE statutory notice of demand was given to the petitioner requiring him to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice and the petitioner not having paid the amount, the complaint was filed. On receipt of the summons from the trial court, the petitioner has filed the present application to quash the above complaint.

(3.) MEETING the above contentions, Thiru K. S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that at this stage, this court has merely to accept the complaint as it is and find out whether an offence has been committed and in the present case, there is a specific averment in the complaint that Surya Advertising P. Ltd. and Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. are sister concerns and the petitioner is the managing director of both the concerns and the cheque has been issued by the petitioner from out of the account of Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. on the specific representation that funds in Surya Advertising P. Ltd. were not sufficient and that there were sufficient funds in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. According to learned counsel, either way, the petitioner would be liable, particularly when to the notice of demand sent after the dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner had not chosen to send even a reply or to pay the amount and, as such, the complaint has to be sustained.