RAJKUMAR MENON Vs. UPASANA FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order passed by the XXIII metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai in Crl. M. P. No. 3977 of 2002 in C. C. No. 1101 of 2001, dismissing the petition to drop proceedings against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A-4 and A-5 in the said Calendar Case on the ground that on the day of presentation of the alleged cheque, they ceased to be the Directors of the company, on whose behalf, the said cheque has been issued.

(2.) THE circumstances under which, the order impugned had been passed is as follows: the complainant company, namely Upasana Finance, had lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A-4 and A-5 for offences under Secs. 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments act along with three others. It may not be necessary for this Court to go deep into the details of the said complaint and for the purpose of disposing of this revision, suffice it to state that the complainant company had entered into a Consumer Durable Finance with the employees of the company, wherein the petitioners herein are discharging their duties as Directors under an undertaking that the company would deduct the hire Purchase instalments of the employees and remit the same to the complainant company. Since the accused company failed to abide by the conditions of the agreement entered upon, the complainant company had resorted to the filing of a private complaint, which though pending-investigation, the accused in the meanwhile had approached the complainant company agreeing to remit the amount and in pursuant of the same had issued three cheques, each to the tune of Rs. 1,93,788 which on presentation returned unpaid with the endorsements as "funds insufficient" and "payment stopped by the Drawer". Hence, after observing all the formalities, the prosecution had been launched for the above said offences.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate after having taken cognizance of the offence had issued process to the accused. On receipt of summons, the accused entered appearance. The preliminary objection raised by the counsel before the Court below and this Court is that the first petitioner ceased to be the Director from 3. 7. 1999 and the second petitioner from 17. 2. 1999 and in support of the same had also filed certified copies of form-32. In effect, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is that on the date of presentation of the cheque, viz. , on 13. 11. 2000, the petitioners were not in charge of the day to day affairs of the company.