RAJEEV KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are taken together as common question between both the parties is involved. The petitioner-Mr.Rajeev Khandelwal is original accused no.6 in complaint C.C.no.4870/SS/2009 and Original accused no.4 in Complaint C.C.No.5299/SS/2009, he has been prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent no.2 is the complainant engaged in the business of financial advisory services, advising corporate in debt resolution, project finance, mergers and acquisitions and private equity transactions. M/s.Natural Petrochemicals Private Limited appointed respondent no.2 as exclusive financial advisor vide mandate letter dated 1.10.2008 for representing, structuring and assisting for comprehensive financial restructuring of the outstanding liabilities. The respondent no.2 had completed the transactions and asserted, to be entitled to its professional fees as per the mandate letter and it raised a total bill of Rs.33,21,000/-. In discharge of the said liability towards part payment, Sandip Khandelwal (original accused no.2) issued a cheque on behalf of M/s.Natural Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd. drawn on Punjab National Bank, Nirman Darshan, Andheri (E), Mumbai.

(2.) Since the cheque on its presentation was dishonoured, followed by statutory demand notice dated 14 th October,2009, complaint in terms of Section 138 r/w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. The learned Judge issued process on 24 th November,2009, same is questioned in both the writ petitions.

(3.) The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern with the company or with the transaction of issuance of cheque as he was not a Director at the relevant time. He has not transacted with respondent-company. The complainant did not verify that the petitioner has nothing to do with the Accused company nor records were checked with the Registrar of Companies. The learned Counsel submits, mere one letter by Petitioner would not bind him as a Director as the very concept of he being a Director has been disputed. If he is other than a Director, to be prosecuted then specific pleadings should have been made to show his role. Notice was wrongly issued at the address of the company with which the petitioner has no concern. Verification statement does not make out a case of involvement of petitioner. The petitioner was neither employee nor on the Board of Directors of M/s.Natural Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd., nor issued, signed or executed any document in favour of respondent no.2 for appointing respondent no.2 as exclusive financial advisor of M/s.Natural Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd., the liabilities could not sought to be fastened against him.