SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED Vs. MOTOROL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Gupte, the learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Mundargi, the learned counsel for the Respondents, and Mr. M. P. Galeria, the learned A. P. P. for the State.

(2.) THE Applicant had filed the complaint being Case No. 3100 of 1996, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri, Pune. THE Respondents had challenged the order of issuance of process before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge (M. N. Patale), Pune, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the verification statement recorded by the learned Magistrate was not signed by him and, secondly, on the basis of a ruling of the Supreme Court in a case of Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corporation Ltd. Secunderabad Vs. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) P. Ltd. and Anr. , 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 1027 (S. C.) : (1996) 2 SCC 739 : AIR 1996 SC 2339 : 1996 Cri. L. J. 1692 : 1996 (1) Bank CLR 503 : 1996 (2) Bom. C. R. 150 : 1997 (1) Mah LR 1 : 1996 Bank Cases 217 : 1996 (86) Com. Case 30 : 1996 (3) Crimes 82.

(3.) THE result of the present judgment of the Supreme Court is that once the cheque is issued by a Drawer, a presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the Act and merely because the Drawer issues a notice to the Drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of payment, it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.