CHANDRAKANT AMBANI Vs. INDER RAJ KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard. It is not in dispute that Inder Raj Khanna, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against this petitioner Chandrakant Ambani, Hirachand Salocha and Jitendra Kumar alias Jitu Bhai, who died during the course of this petition, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'act'), which is registered as Criminal Complaint No. 73/2000, on these facts and M/s. S. K. G. Solvex Company Ltd. , Choubey Colony, Near Central Bank of India, Raipur, which shall hereinafter be referred as 'solvex Ltd. ' of which Jitendra Kumar alias Jitu Bhai and Hirachand Salecha are the Directors, purchased Soyabeen seeds on credit worth Rs. 5,89,093/- in total, from respondent No. 1 the complainant, through M/s. Balaji Trading Corporation, Sagar.

(2.) PETITIONER Chandrakant Ambani was the Accountant of the Solvex Ltd. , at the relevant time. On 13th June, 1996, Solvex Ltd. made a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- against the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 5,89,093/- through a cheque and on 31st March, 1997, Hirachand Salecha handed over an account payee cheque, in favour of Inder Raj Khanna, respondent No. 1, for balance amount of Rs. 3,39,093/-, which stood dishonoured. It is also stated in the complaint that respondent No. 1 Inder Raj Khanna sent registered legal notices to Jitendra Kumar alias Jitu Bhai and Hirachand Salecha, the Directors of Solvex Ltd. , on 17th/19th May, 1997, making a request for payment of balance amount of Rs. 3,39,093/-, in addition to interest. It is further stated in the complaint that the notice issued to Jitendra Kumar alias Jitu Bhai was received unserved on 8th July, 1997, whereas, the notice issued to Hirachand Salecha respondent No. 2 was not received back served or unserved, till filing of the complaint.

(3.) THE petitioner seeks quashment of Criminal Complaint No. 73/2000 pending in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Sagar, on the grounds that Solvex Ltd. is not arrayed as accused in the complaint, the petitioner being Accountant only in Solvex Ltd. , cannot be treated to have been incharge of or responsible to the Company for the conduct and affairs of its business and hence, is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the Act, and that the complaint does not contain an assertion of service of notice on this petitioner before filing of the complaint as required under Section 138 of the Act.