KRISHNA MURARI PODDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions involve a common question, though they are arising from the different orders of issue of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, they were heard together.

(2.) MR. Mundergi who appeared for the petitioners in all these petitions raised three contentions. Firstly, that the Directors i. e. the petitioners of the accused - company had resigned before issuance of cheque. Secondly, the complainant did not prima facie prove that the petitioner Directors were responsible for the day to day business of the company as required under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thirdly, he contended that complaint was filed without getting acknowledgment from the postal department in respect of the notices served upon the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence there was nothing before the complainant to show that the complaint was filed after the expiry of 15 days period from the date of service of the notice.

(3.) MR. Jagtiani, on the other hand contended that accepting the ground of resignation of the Directors, the other two grounds were not raised before the trial Court and therefore the petitioners should not be heard in the matter. So far as Directors liability is concerned, he contended that even though the Directors had resigned before issuance of cheque the complainant had relied upon the agreement of lease under which post dated cheques were issued on the date of the agreement and since the petitioners were Directors on the date of issuance of the cheque, they should not claim discharge on the ground that they had resigned before the date of the cheque. Mr. Jagtiani also contended that against some of the orders of issuance of process, the petitioners had moved the Sessions Judge by filing revision and had also filed these present petitions and it was not permissible for the accused to simultaneously resort to two proceedings in respect of the same order. However, at this juncture Mr. Mundergi made a statement across the bar that he will withdraw the revisions before the Sessions Judge. His statement is accepted.