SATYA PRAKASH AGGRAWAL Vs. S L AGRAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this case under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash the Criminal Proceeding initiated against them in I. C. C. case No. 150 of 2001 pending before the Court of S. D. J. M., Panposh at Udit Nagar, Rourkela.

(2.) They have been arrainged as accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the aforesaid complaint filed by M/s. S. L. Agrawala & Co., being represented through its Director, Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal. As per the case of the complainant Company it carries on business of manufacturing Iron and Steel re-rolled products. In usual course of business it sold and supplied raw materials to M/s. Mohatta & Heckel Ltd., accused No. 1, from time to time. In the process the accused Company owed a sum of Rs. 1,06,65,653/- along with interest to the complainant. On 1-10-2001 the accused Company, through one of its Directors, namely Anand Kumar Mohatta (Accused No. 4) issued a cheque of Rs.1 crore in favour of the complainant drawn on Sector-19, Branch of UCO. Bank, Rourkela. The complainant presented the said cheque on 1-10-2001 through its Director to Sector- 19 Branch of UCO. Bank Rourkela, which was dishonoured on 1 -10-2001 with the endorsement "insufficient funds". On receipt of the information about the dishonour of cheque the complainant Company through its Advocate issued notice by Registered Post with A. D. on 17-10-2001 to the accused persons demanding payment of the cheque- amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice. In response to the notice, the accused Company individually and accused Nos. 3 and 6 jointly replied to the same through their respective advocate, taking false and evasive pleas to avoid payment. So, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint making M/s. Mohatta & Heckel Ltd. and five of its Directors on accusation of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as N. I. Act). Accused Nos. 5 and 6 have challenged the maintainability of the complaint case against them as mentioned earlier.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no material whatsoever in the complaint petition to show that the petitioners were in charge of, and were responsible to the accused Company for conduct of its business so as to be vicariously liable; for the act or omission of the company in terms of Section 141 (1) of N. I. Act. So, the proceeding for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act initiated against them deserved to be quashed. Section 141(1) of the N. I. Act reads as follows :-