L RAJA KRISHNA REDDY Vs. SATWIK DRUGS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the petitioner-A2 to quash the proceedings in CC No.468 of 1997 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The first respondent herein filed the complaint in CC No.468 of 1997 against the petitioner and another for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 138, 139, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court had already taken cognizance of the offences basing on the complaint filed by the first respondent herein.

(2.) The first respondent in the complaint alleged that it used to supply bulk quantities of drugs and medicines to the accused as and when required, by placing purchase orders by them. It is the case of the first respondent/ complainant that a consignment of 200 Kgs., of Ibuprofen was received by the accused on 8-8-1996 and its basic price was Rs.83,000-00. In addition to the basic price, the purchasers have to pay Rs.8,300.00 and Rs.3,652.00 towards excise duty and sales tax respectively. It is stated in the complaint that the accused had given a post dated cheque for Rs.94,952.00 dated 24-10-1996, drawn on State Bank of India, Rayachoti Branch towards the cost of the purchases made by them. The first respondent-complainant had deposited the said cheque in State Bank of Mysore, Secunderabad branch on 22-3-1997 and the same was returned with an endorsement "payment stopped by drawer'' and the same was informed to the first respondent/complainant on 10-4-1997. The first respondent/complainant thereafter sent a notice under registered post and also under Certificate of Posting on 22-4-1997 and inspite of the receipt of the said notice, the accused failed to pay the amount. Under those circumstances, the first respondent had lodged the complaint.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the person representing the first respondent-Company is only the Material Manager in the Company and he has no authority to file the complaint on behalf of the Company. It is also the case of the petitioner mat he has not issued the cheque in dispute and the A1 in the complaint has issued the cheque on behalf of M/s. Bhagat Research Laboratories. The notice sent by the first respondent-Company is received by the petitioner on 25-4-1997 and he immediately sent a reply denying issuance of any cheque by him. It is stated that the Company, itself, is not an accused in the complaint and when the Company itself is not an accused, the other persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business cannot be made liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The provisions of Section 141 of the Act can be invoked against the persons who arc incharge of the Company. The persons who conduct business alone are responsible. According to the petitioner, there is not even an allegation against the petitioner that he is responsible in any way either in conducting the business or issuing the cheque.