PRABHAT KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused no.3, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) RESPONDENT no.1 filed complaints against the applicant and others under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said cases are numbered as CC Nos.CC No.1719/SS/2005, 1718/SS/2005,3796/SS/2005 and 2948/SS/2005. These cases are pending before the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate and Judge of Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The complaints came to be filed against the applicant as at the relevant time, the applicant was Director of the Company i.e. original accused no.1. There is one other accused in the said case. However, in the present matter, we are not concerned with said accused. In all these cases, process came to be issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 138 r.w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant. Being aggrieved thereby, revisions came to be preferred before the Sessions Court. The said revision came to be dismissed, hence, these applications have been preferred.

(3.) IN support of his contention that if notice is not sent to the accused, the accused cannot be made liable and the order of process deserves to be quashed, the learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions in Bipin J.Shah Vs. Smt.Niru B.Mehta reported in 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 632 and Chaitan M.Maniar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1035.