MADANLAL Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed under Section, 397 read with Section 401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 20th September, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Case No. 144/2000 Bhanwarlal v. Sargam Apuntex Ltd. and Ors. , whereby cognizance against the petitioner No. 1 Madanlal, No. 2 Anoop kumar and P. W. 3 Pradeep Kumar was taken under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act. , 1881 (in short the Act hereinafter) in relation to cheques Exs. 2,3 and 4 after intimation, Ex. 7 was received from the Bank about their dishonour.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist-petitioners argued that the petitioners were not incharge of and responsible to conduct of the company at the relevant time and no prima facie case for proceeding against them under the said section is made out. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his argument : (1) K. P. G. Nan v. M/s. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. , 2000 Cr. L. R. (SC)778; (2) State of Haryana v. Brij Lal and Ors. , 1998 Cr. L. R. (SC) 400; (3) M/s. Nakoda Laminators and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Anr. , 1998 Cr. L. J. 3525; (4) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan and Ors. , (1983) 1 scc 1; (5) Smt. Harshila Lodha and Anr. v. State of Raj. , Cri. Misc. Pet. No. 712/99, decided on 2. 5. 2002.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for the complainant-non-petitioner argued that there is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order, as there was a prima facie case against the petitioners for commission of an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act. It was further argued that petitioners are Directors of the company and at the time of commission of offence, they were incharge of and responsible to the affairs of the company. The question of issuance of cheques with knowledge, consent and connivance of petitioners cannot be decided at this stage on probabilities and it is to be decided during the trial. As prima facie case was made out for the said offence against accused persons, the learned Magistrate did not commit any illegality in taking cognizance against them. The learned Counsel relied on the following judgments in his support : (1) Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. , 2000 (1) Crimes 26 (SC ). (2) Rohinto Noria v. M/s. NCC Finance Ltd. , Hyderabad and Anr. , 2000 (3) Crimes 490. (3) Mohd. Isaq Gulsani v. J. Rajamouli and Anr. , 2001 (2) Crimes 437. (4) D. R. Gupta v. State, 2002 (1) Crimes 690 (Delhi ). (5) Pritama Reddy and Ors. v. Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. by its Special Power of Attorney and Anr. , 2001 (2) Crimes 365. (6) Trichur Cotton Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Devarasetty Cotton (New Firm)and Anr. , 2001 (2) Crimes 430. (7) Rajneesh Agarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla, 2001 (1) Crimes 104 (SC ). (8) S. P. Subramaniam v. Vasavi Cotton Traders and Anr. , 2002 Cr. L. J. 4226.