PAWAN SACHDEVA Vs. STATE U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Crl. Misc. No. 28198-M of 1998, Pawan sachdeva, Sadhna Sachdeva and Krishna Sachdeva who are Managing Director and Directors respectively of M/s. M. S. Shoes Ltd. have prayed for the grant of bail to them in case FIR No. 304 dated 5. 10. 1998 under Sections 420/467/471, IPC of PS Sector 17, Chandigarh.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the alleged facts which have given rise to this case are as follows: m/s. Modella Knitwears Ltd. SCO 44, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh (complainant) through Shri Ashok Goyal, its authorised appointed Representative of the Company instituted complaint under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) against the petitioners (herein)on the allegations that the complainant is a Company incorporates under the Companies Act, 1956. Arun Goyal is the Managing Director of this company while Ashok Goyal and M. L. Goyal are directors of the Company. This Company is manufacturer of high class hosiery items. M/s. M. S. Shoes (accused) is also a Company. Pawan Sachdeva and his wife Sadhna Sachdeva approached the complainant Company for the purchase of hosiery items for their business on behalf of their Company. As per their orders, hosiery items were dispatched from time-to-time. Transactions between these two companies took place w. e. f. 10. 6. 1993 to 26. 10. 1995. Complainant Company has been maintaining the accounts pertaining to the transactions vis-a-vis the issue of bills and payments as and when received recorded therein. Payments were not made in time as per settled terms and conditions but the com-plainants accepted the delayed payments at the request and assurance of the accused persons so that their business relations remained cordial. Liability qua the total supply of the hosiery items which was duly received by the accused reached Rs. 1,53,48,740/. In order to discharge part of the liability, the accused persons issued cheque No. 87400 110022022 dated 28. 10. 1995 for Rs. 50,97,320/- payable to Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. Cheque was issued and given by Pawan Sachdeva, M. D. of the accused company at Chandigarh in the office of the complainant. Sadhna Sachdeva, director of the accused Company was also present of that time along with pawan Sachdeva. Cheque was presented by the complainant Company in its account with Canara Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh for its realisation through clearance. Cheque was returned unpaid by the Canara Bank with memo dated 27. 2. 1996 recording insufficient funds issued by the Oriental bank of Commerce, New Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act allegedly after complying with the procedure laid down in that Act at Chandigarh. During the period, since the accused side owned some amount to the sister concern M/s. Pearl Intercontinental ltd. of the complainant side, accused made payment on 26. 11. 1996 of Rs. 40 lacs through two Bank cheques No. 048165 and 048166 each for Rs. 20-lacs on 11. 12. 1996 i. e. the date filed in the complaint case under Section 138 of the Act. The accused produced receipt which was alleged to have been issued by the complainant Company acknowledging the Bankers cheque of rs. 40 lacs and in the receipt, it was also stated that the amount of Rs. 40 lacs had been received in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant Company i. e. laid in the said complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No such receipt was issued by the complainant. Accused forged this receipt with a view to secure the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Accused produced the forged receipt with a view to the Court holding that in view of receipt the entire claim stood fully satisfied. In complaint under Section 138 of the Act, this plea of the accused did not find favour with the Court and complaint was not dismissed. As per complainant Company Receipt relied upon by the accused was neither signed by the complainant Company nor issued by the complainant Company. As per the complainant, the accused went on producing the forged documents in Court in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act and 3 invoices/bills MKL/93/01, MKL/93/02 and MKL/93/03 all of date 10. 6. 1993 for Rs. 7,30,800/- and these bills were forged with the fictitious signatures similar to the signatures appearing on the receipt. As per complainant, the bills/invoices book, out of which these 3 bills were tried to be shown, do not tally with the printing subject and other ingredients of the bills which stand issued to the accused by them. Bills are issued by the complainant Company from this bill book to the succused from MKL/93/01 to MKL/93/03. Complainant Company produced 3 carbon copies of bill Nos. MKL/93/01 to MKL/93/03 and these carbon copies tally with the bill Nos. NKL/93/04 to MKL/93/11 and MKL/93/13 to MKL/93/18. As per the complainant forgery was there in these three bills and there was no other purpose of forgery of these 3 bills except to tally with the receipt bearing signatures like the bills in hand, otherwise, the payment against all bills starting from mkl/93/01 from this bill book onwards always stands received by the complainant from the accused. In complaint under Section 138 of the Act, shri B. C. Gupta, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh convicted and sentenced Pawan Sachdeva to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 12,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further ri for 3 months. Accused-Company was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 13,000/- under Section 138 of the Act. Receipt-cum-undertaking did not find favour with the Court.

(3.) M/s. Modella Knitwears Ltd. instituted complaint under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B, IPC in the Court against M/s. M. S. Shoes Ltd. (Company), Pawan Sachdeva, Managing Director, Mrs. Sadhna Sachdeva, director and Mrs. Krishna Sachdeva, Director of this Company. Complaint was sent to the police station under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. c. for registration of the case and investigation thereof. This is how this case was registered.