NEPC MECON LIMITED Vs. MAGMA LEASING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revisional petition being one under section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated December 10, 1997 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in complaint case No. C-494 of 1997 under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the prayer of the petitioners-accused persons by discharging them under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected on contest. The complainant-O.P. being a limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 had its registered office at 24, Part Street, Calcutta-700 016 (i.e. within the jurisdiction of Calcutta, West Bengal) and had also a Branch Office at Haddous Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. The complainant-O.P. was a financial institution, inter alia, providing fund for Hire purchase of machineries and other assets for business concerns. The complaint in the case was filed by the Assistant Manager (Legal and Administration) as an authorised representative of the O.P. company. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner-accused Nos. 2 to 8 were incharge of management of the day-to-day affairs of the NEPC Micon Limited, being petitioner-accused one and were also controlling the affairs of the said company. It was alleged that in discharge of his existing liability, the O.P.-company tendered as many as five cheques dated 1.1.97 for various amount, the total being Rs. 58,25,980/- to the petitioner-company (accused No. 1) drawn on Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras-600108 in favour of the O.P.-company (the complainant). Those cheques were duly tendered by the O.P.-company to their banker, Punjab National Bank, Park Street Branch, Calcutta for encashment but those cheques were returned by the banker of the accused persons i.e. Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras with the remark as "account closed". The O.P.-company, thereafter, issued notices upon the accused persons on 14.1.97 through their advocate demanding payment of the total sum of the dishonoured cheques within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The accused-company as well as their Directors (i.e. the petitioners) received the notice on 17.1.97, but, on expiry of the statutory period of 15 days, they neglected and failed to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheques, Hence was the necessity to prosecute the petitioners-accused persons for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

(2.) The petitioners-accused persons after having entered into appearance in the proceeding before the Court below filed a petition for discharge under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the impugned order by rejecting the prayer as such, the petitioners feel aggrieved of the said order and have therefore, come up with the instant revisional petition.

(3.) The first and foremost point of challenge as contended on behalf of the petitioners was want of jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding-in-question by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and, in this context, it was contended that the underlying agreements of hire purchase between the parties with regard to which the relevant cheques had been drawn and handed over to the O.P.-Company, had been made at Chennai (Madras) and not in Calcutta (West Bengal). It was further pointed out that the relevant cheques were drawn on Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras and, it was thus contended that the alleged dishonour (bouncing), if at all any such was there, was at Chennai (Madras) and not in Calcutta (West Bengal). Yet another point, highlighted was that with respect to some other such cheques having been dishonoured, the O.P.-Company had instituted criminal cases being C.C. No. 6339 of 1996 of and C.C. No. 6341 of 1996 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and that being as such, the O.P./Complainant should have chosen the forum at Chennai and not in Calcutta.