SUBASH BAJAJ Vs. MEHRA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHASH Bajaj through present petition filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of the order dated 3.12.1994 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to the extent that respondent No.3, Krishna Mehra has not been summoned under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THERE is a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Narula, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents with regards to the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contends that there is specific provision on filing of revision petition under Section 398 and that being so the matter cannot be raked up under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the argument needs to be rejected by simply observing that even if technically the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents may be correct, a fact, however, hotly denied and contested by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court can always treat this petition under Section 398. The objection, thus, raised by Mr. Narula is overruled.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that whenever an offence is committed by a company or a partnership concern the company or the partners as well as the person incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company become liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. For the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel relies upon in Kahan Gupta v. Raj Kumar, 1994 Recent C.R. 336: 1994 ISJ (Banking) 310 : and Manju Podar v. Ashwani Kumar, 1994 (1) C.R. 655: 1994 ISJ (Banking) 228 :