VINOD HINGORANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. None appears for respondent No. 2, though served. Perused the reply of respondent no. 2.

(2.) This Application challenges an order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process upon a complaint filed for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. The complaint pertains to dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 35092/ -. One cheque is of Rs. 35,000/- and the other cheque is of Rs. 92/- only. Admittedly, the applicant is not signatory to the cheque. The order issuing process was also challenged by the applicant in revision and the revision application was dismissed by Sessions Judge, pune vide order dated 23rd February, 2006. Both these orders passed by the learned magistrate as well as Sessions Judge are impugned in this application.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing in support of this application contends that the applicant is original accused No. 4. He is arrayed because he was Director of accused No. 1 company. The applicant resigned from the company on 27th October, 2003. The cheques which were subject matter of the complaint were issued on 8. 4. 2004 and 7. 4. 2004. Same were dishonoured on 13th and 10th April, 2004. Notice was issued on 7th May, 2004. In these circumstances and in the absence of necessary averments in the complaint viz. , that applicant was responsible for conduct of business of company being absent in the complaint, as far as applicant is concerned, same does not disclose any offence much less punishable under section 138 of the N. I. Act.