P RAJARATHINAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G. S. Hegde for the petitioners in all the petitions and Mr. Adik Shirodkar for the original complainant - respondents and APP for the State.

(2.) QUESTION involved in Petition No.763/98, 764/98, 794/98 are identical and that is if the notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N. I. Act) is not given to the company and if for th reason company cannot be made accused in complaint case then whether the Directors of that company can be made liable and can be made accused. QUESTION involved in Petition No.765/98 and 766/98 is whether the Director who has resigned from his post as Director can be proceeded against under Section 138 or 141 of the N. I. Act. These questions were formulated on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Hegde for the petitioners.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid allegations which are identical to the averments made in the other complaints involved in other writ petition (excluding Writ Petition No.794/98) it is clear that the transaction giving rise to the issuance of the cheque was the transaction between the present petitioner and Mrs. Anita Chandrakant Garware and it was also on account of MOU and supplemental MOU arrived at between them, wherein the present petitioner P. Rajarathinam agreed to pay to late Chandrakant Garware sum of Rs. 4.94 crores and representative of the present petitioner, one C. Muthuswamy sought time to give cheques for the said amount in four instalments and consequently, the cheques were issued under the authority of the present petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the complainant nowhere states that M/s. PRA Investments Ltd. was the drawer of the cheque but it is asserted by the complainant that the cheques were issued pursuant to the MOU or supplementary MOU were signed as authorised signatory of M/s. PRA Investments Ltd. In the case before Justice Barde, the drawer of the cheque was undisputedly M/s. Shakti Spinners Ltd. and the signatory of the cheque was managing Director. This in my opinion is the distinguishing factor between A. Chinnaswami's case decided by Justice Barde and this present case and this distinguishing factor, makes all the difference and therefore the judgment of Justice Barde is of no help to the petitioner. Petitioner therefore cannot be allowed to contend that because proceedings cannot lie against M/s. PRA Investments Ltd. for want of notice under Section 138, the proceedings cannot lie against the present petitioner. This contention is therefore rejected in the petitions Nos. 763/98 and 764/98.