ANCIENT INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KOTAK SECURITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Khandeparkar for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Desai for the respondent No. 1 complainant. Petitioners before this Court are accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. From the allegations in the complaint and the very submissions of the Advocate for the complainant, it is clear that the liability in this case of the debt was of accused No. 6 which is a company and accused Nos. 7 and 8 who were the Directors of the accused No. 6. The cheque in question was issued as alleged by the complainant by accused No. 1 which is a company and was signed by accused No. 2 as Director of the Company. The question that is raised by the petitioners in this case is whether accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 who are the petitioners before this Court could be prosecuted by the complainant in view of the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) ON the other hand it was contended by the Counsel for the complainant that the complainant has in his complaint given details of the intrinsic connection between all the accused and the close relation his of all the Directors, which all the accused involved. He also contended that all the accused had given a common reply, which also prima facie prove the contention of the complainant regarding the close connection between all the accused. Lastly, he contended that if the liability was of accused No. 6, then they could not be allowed to escape the liability by pointing the finger at some other company of which they had full control. Counsel for the complainant relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1995 (2) Crimes page 636 (Brijlal v. Jugal Kishore and others ).

(3.) A perusal of this judgment shows that in that case the liability to pay was of Company X and at their instance cheques were issued by the Company By (both partnership firms ). When the cheque was dishonoured Company X was prosecuted only and not Y. When the matter came to this Court, it was held that so long as the liability was there from which account the cheques were paid did not matter and the company whom the liability was there could not raise the defence that cheque was issued by the other company.