LALIT BERIWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. prays for quashing the order of cognizance dated 25.10.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 2730 of 2011 and also for quashing the proceeding in the said complaint case. The petitioner is the sole accused in the complaint case bearing I.C.C. Case No. 2730 of 2011 for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the present Opp. Party No. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the complaint petition filed by Opp. Party No. 2 clearly make out a case of commission of offence by the Company M/s. Beekay Steel and Power Ltd. and the present petitioner was the whole time Director of M/s. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., and also the Authorized Signatory of M/s. Beekay Steel and Power Ltd., which is an associate company of M/s. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., and that the petitioner asked the complainant to take up take up work of public Consultation meeting (public hearing) of M/s. Beekay Steel and Power Ltd. at Barbil at village level, Panchayat level and District Level and to make the public hearing a success, and the petitioner allegedly promised to pay to the complainant incentive of Rs. 5,00,000 for successful conduct of the public hearing and after completion of the work the petitioner issued a cheque of the Company for Rs. 4,90,000 to the complainant drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank but the cheque bounced, and that it being clear from the allegations that the company committed an offence, the petitioner who is the Authorized Signatory of the company cannot be prosecuted to the exclusion of the company i.e., the company having not been made an accused in the complaint case.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party No. 2-complainant on the other hand submits that the allegations made in the complaint petition do not disclose that the company has committed an offence but, on the other hand, allegations made against the petitioner relate to the act done by him in his individual capacity and therefore, the complaint is maintainable against the petitioner in the absence of the company being made an accused. It is further his submission that only during the trial it can be ascertained whether company has committed an offence or not and not at the cognizance stage Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is relevant for the purpose, is extracted hereunder:

(3.) Interpreting the provision of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Apex Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2012 AIR(SC) 2795 held as follows: