RAMA RICE MILLS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused 1 & 2. A1 is the proprietary concerned represented by A2 and A2 is thereby insignificant for array of A1 with name of proprietary concerned as proprietor, is sufficient. The 2nd respondent to the quash petition is the complainant who is seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.720 of 2013, on the file of the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, later transferred and now pending as CC.67 of 2014 before IV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. The calendar case taken cognizance is from the private complaint of the 2nd respondent for dishonour of the cheque in question for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act. It is from the cheque returned not paid and after statutory notice acknowledged, with no payment, with no reply and after approval of cause of action, the complaint is filed and that was taken cognizance.

(2.) The main impugnment in the quash petition is that, cheque must have been issued but drawn by a person on the account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another for discharge of whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, returned to anybody either because of amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour or exceeds the amount arranged to be paid and cheque must be presented within six months from the date it is drawn to say within its validity and payer or holder in due course for payment of money due notice in writing after return of cheque within 30 days of receipt of cheque return information of unpaid amount demanded if not paid within 15 days of said receipt of notice to accrue cause of action and by so referring the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act, it is contended that cheque was not returned for insufficiency of funds, complaint as well as the legal notice for return of the cheque mentioned drawers signature to operate account not received and it is not sufficient to mulk with criminal lilablility for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act and the proceedings are there by liable to be quashed.

(3.) In support of the contention, in the course of hearing, while reiterating, the counsel for the accused/petitioner placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in APARNA A.SHAH Vs. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER, 2013 8 SCC 71 it is observed that, no one can be fastened with criminal liability for acts of others, except as expressly provided by law, only the drawer of the cheque is liable for prosecution and all the ingredients referred supra as observed in JUGESH SEHGAL v. SHAMSHER SINGH GOGI, 2009 14 SCC 683 to be made out.