JAIPUR SYNTEX LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Succinctly stated the facts in brief are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner-company and its directors, under Ss. 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") in the month of May, 1999. On 9-6-1999, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under S. 138 of the Act against the petitioner-company. Feeling aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the petitioner-company and respondent No. 2 both challenged the order of cognizance dated 9-6-1999 before this Court by filing a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. and a revision petition under S. 397(3), Cr. P.C., respectively. This Court vide order dated 24-4-2002 remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

(2.) Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 1 -5-2004 took cognizance of the offence in respect of all the petitioners. The petitioner challenged the above said order in revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which came to be heard and decided by the Special Court (Fake Currency Matters), Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned revisional Court vide its order dated 5-8- 2004 dismissed the revision-petition and affirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence the present petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the order passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court.

(3.) The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Kamalakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner-company was declared to be a sick company. According to him, an order under S. 22-A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "SICA") was passed on 17-2-1998 by the BIFR, thereby restraining the Company from alienating any of its assets and, therefore, the petitioner-company was not in a position to honour the cheques issued on 25- 12-1998 and 15-1-1999. In this background learned counsel submitted that it cannot be said that offence under S. 138 of the Act was completed. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. M/s. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd., 2000 Cri LJ 1464 : (AIR 2000 SC 954).