SEKHAR GUPTA Vs. SUBHAS CHANDRA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is for quashing the proceeding, being Case No. C. 2067 of 1989, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ninth Court, Alipore. The facts relevant for the appreciation of the points raised in the instant revision may be briefly stated as follows :

(2.) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the instant revisional application for quashing the aforesaid proceeding.

(3.) Mr. Deb, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that cheque No. 018455, dated September 10, 1989, for Rs. 15,000 was presented to the bank for payment on September 10, 1989, and returned unpaid and that the bank's intimation in this regard was given to the payee, i.e., the complainant-opposite party on September 12, 1989. He has also submitted that cheque No. 018456, dated September 20, 1989, for Rs. 10,000 was presented to the bank for payment on September 22, 1989, and returned unpaid and that the bank's intimation in this regard was given to the payee, i.e., the complainant-opposite party on September 23, 1989. He has argued that, as the notice in writing demanding payment of the amounts of the said dishonoured cheques was not given in the instant case within fifteen days of the receipt of information by the complainant from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid, as required under Section 138(b) of the Act, the instant case under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. He has also argued that, by subsequent presentation and dishonour of the cheques, the said period of limitation cannot be saved. He has further argued that the company, Ambitious General Finance and Housing Company (P.) Ltd., is the principal offender, that the accused persons, being its director and officers are only vicariously liable and that as the principal offender has not been impleaded as an accused, the instant proceeding should fail and should be quashed. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate took cognizance mechanically without applying his judicial mind inasmuch as there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners were the persons who, at the time the offence was committed, were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.