VIRENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. GUJARAT SINDHI CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1-complainant. The learned app appears for the State.

(2.) THESE three petitions have been filed by the original accused No. 3 in Criminal case Nos. 830/m/2000, 831/m/2000 and 832/m/2000, all instituted by the respondent No. 1 for dishonour of the following cheques: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_782_BCR(CRI)2_2007Html1.htm</FRM> The total amount of the dishonoured cheques comes to Rs. 3,23,92,000/ -. Against the present petitioner - accused No. 3 process was issued on or about 26th September 2000 and the petitioner had approached the sessions Court by way of revision application against the order of process issued in Criminal Case No. 831/m/2000. However, there was delay in filing the said revision and, therefore, M. A. No. 1378 of 2006 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the revision application which came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions court vide order dated 8th August 2006. In the other two petitions, the petitioner has approached this Court directly. Hence these petitions under Article 227 of the constitution and under section 482 of cr. P. C. The only reason that is advanced in support of these petitions is that on the date of the cheques the petitioner was not holding the post of Managing Director of the accused No. 1 - Company i. e. M/s. V. K. Industries Ltd. , though he continued to be a Director of the said Company. It was further submitted that while holding the post of Director he was not in-charge and responsible for the day to day management of the said accused No. 1 - Company and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In support of these submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decision : (1) (Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.), 2004 (2) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)512 : 2004 DGLS 476 : A. I. R. 2004 s. C. 4274. (2) (S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta bhalla and anr.), 2005 (2) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)696 : 2005 DGLS 597: A. I. R. 2005 S. C. 3512 : J. T. 2005 (8) S. C. 450. : 2005 (7)SCALE 397 : 2005 (8) S. C. C. 89 : 2005 (6)Supreme 442. (3) (Sabitha Ramamurthy and anr Vs. R. B. S. Channabasavaradhya), 2006 (2)Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)720 : 2006 Cri. L. J. 4602 : 2006 DGLS 610 : 2006 (7) Supreme 168 : J. T. 2006 (12) S. C. 20 : A. I. R. 2006 s. C. 3086 : 2006 (10) S. C. C. 581. (4) (Saroj Kumar Poddarvs. State (NCT of Delhi)and anr.), 2007 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)638 : 2007 DGLS 38 : A. I. R. 2007 S. C. 912 j. T. 2007 (2) S. C. 233 : 2007 (2) SCALE 36 2007 (1) Supreme 239 : 2007 (3) S. C. C. 693 2007 All. M. R. (Cri) 560 (S. C.) (5) (N. K. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and ors.), 2007 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)830: 2007 (3)Bom. C. R. (S. C.)88 : 2007 DGLS 273 : A. I. R. 2007 S. C. 1454. (6) (K. Srikanth Singh Vs. North East Securities ltd. and anr.) Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2007 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 5710 of 2006 reported in 2007 (2) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C.)447.

(3.) A three Judge Bench in the case of s. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra)considered the scheme of sections 138 and 141 of the Act and stated as under: