ORIENT SYNTEX LIMITED Vs. BESANT CAPITAL TECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON dishonour of Cheque No. 434881 dated 26-1-1995, drawn by the petitioner Company Orient Syntex Limited in the sum of Rs. 12,56,212/- in favour of Besant Capital Tech Limited, the complainant Besant Capital Tech Limited issued notice to the petitioner Company and its Directors, demanding payment within 15 days from the receipt of the notice failing which the petitioner Company and its Directors would be prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As the petitioner Company and its Directors refused to comply with the notice, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Akola, against the petitioner Company and its Directors, which came to be registered as Complaint Case No. 1120 of 1996.

(2.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after verification of the complaint, passed an order issuing process against the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by his order dated 16-7-1996. Thereafter, it appears that the accused failed to appear in response to the summons. On 11-9-1996, non-bailable warrants came to be issued against the accused Nos. 3 to 9 who were Directors of the petitioner Company. This issuance of process came to be challenged before this Court vide Criminal Application No. 1227 of 1996. By the order dated 14-1-1997, this Court recorded that the petitioners/accused having already moved an application before the learned Magistrate to recall the process, it ordered that the learned Magistrate would consider the said application and decide the same with reasonable expediency after hearing both the sides and also made certain observations and, therefore, the petitioners did not press for reliefs based on various contentions raised before this Court, which came to be disposed of accordingly.

(3.) THE learned 9th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, heard the Counsel appearing for the petitioner Company, accused Nos. 3, 7, 9 and 10, and rejected their application Exhs. 11 and 67 which were filed for recall of the process. It is this order of the learned Magistrate which is challenged before this Court by this petition.