MAYURI PULSE MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of sections 138, 139, 140 and 141 in Chapter XVII of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the N. I. Act") as enacted by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 is under challenge in this bunch of six writ petitions Since all these writ petitions involve the aforesaid common question of law, these petitions are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) BEFORE we appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel challenging the provisions of sections 138, 139, 140 and 141 of the N. I. Act as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, briefly the facts of Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 1994 may be adverted to.

(3.) IT is alleged in Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 1994 M/s. Mayuri Pulse Mills and others v. Union of India and others, that the respondent No. 4 Parmanand Mohanlal Rathi, Proprietor M/s Rathi Trading Company filed the complaint against the petitioners under section 142 of the N. I. Act alleging that the petitioners have committed offences under section 138 and 141 of the N. I. Act. According to the complaint, the petitioners issued two cheques drawn on the State Bank of Hyderabad, Amaravati, dated 13. 9. 1991 and 18. 9. 1991 respectively towards payment of the bills amounting to Rs. 1,11,780/ -. The said cheques were deposited for collection in the account of the complainant with the Punjab National Bank, Amaravati Branch, but the said cheques were returned unpaid with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". Thereafter the complaint served upon the notice in writing making a demand for payment of the said amount of money from the petitioners, but the petitioners failed to comply, compelling the complainant to file the complaint under section 138 read with section 141 of the N. I. Act. On the said complaint, which was registered as complaint No. 136 of 1992 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amaravati, the process was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amaravati for dropping the criminal proceedings on the ground that they had not committed any offence within the meaning of section 138 of the N. I. Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25. 1. 1993 dismissed the application holding that no question to drop the criminal proceedings arises. The petitioners taking exception to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amaravati on 25. 1. 1993 rejecting the application to drop the criminal proceedings under sections 138 and 141 of the N. I. Act, preferred the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amaravati, who by his order dated 24. 12. 1993 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application of the accused.