SUKESH GUPTA Vs. RARE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the common order dtd. 21/10/2024 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.683 and 684 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1375 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the above criminal Miscellaneous petitions under Ss. 391(1) and 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall and further cross-examine PW1, V. Satyanarayana, Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, along with production of the statement of account of MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. up to 31/8/2017 stating that no consideration was paid by the complainant bank to MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., and that recalling PW1 was essential to prove the lack of consideration and rebut the presumption under Ss. 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the other hand, the respondent, Punjab National Bank, opposed the petitions contending that MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., availed credit facilities worth Rs.200.00 crores under a consortium arrangement and defaulted in repayment. To discharge part of the dues, the petitioner, as Managing Director, issued two cheques for Rs.10.00 crores each from his personal account along with a covering letter dtd. 2/7/2013 (Ex.P2) authorizing the bank to present them if payment was not made by 15/7/2013. The bank presented the cheques, which were dishonoured for "Funds Insufficient." He further submitted that the petitions were filed only to delay the appeal proceedings and lacked bona fides. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, vide order dtd. 21/10/2024 dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioner, being Managing Director of MBS Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., had issued the cheques from his personal account towards repayment of the company's overdraft, and hence the bank became the holder in due course for consideration. The trial Court relied upon the judgment in Bank of India v. State & Others ,2010 (119) DRJ 401 the trial Court observed that the existing debt constituted valid consideration. S ince the issue had already been dealt with at the trial stage, there was no necessity to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

(3.) Heard Sri K.S. Rahul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.