Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1573 (BOM)

Suresh Motwani v. Devidas Thawani

2012-08-17

K.U.CHANDIWAL

body2012
Judgment : The petitioners questioned issuance of process for offence under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court has, on earlier occasion considering age of the complainant, huge amount of payment as deposits being involved, waiting since 2002 for the cheque dated 29.3.2002, parties were asked to ensure settlement, however, it did not materialised. 2. In a complaint against Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. and others, the petitioner was one of accused. The case is, deposit of Rs.30,00,000/-vide cheque on the basis of negotiable instrument and the company towards repayment and in discharge of liability of said deposit drew, issued and handed over a cheque bearing no.31151 dated 29.3.2002 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Fort, Mumbai. After ensuring statutory compliance since the payment was not made, the complaint as stated above is filed by respondent no.1. The learned Judge has issued process by order dated 13.6.2002. In another matter the cheque issued was for Rs.15,00,000/-and dishonoured, after procedure, complaint was filed. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner Mr.Suresh was a Chairman while Mr.Kishore was a Director of the Company at the material time, however, they have no role in transacting with respondent no.1. The complaint does not disclose offence in terms of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act fixing liability of the Directors. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments in the matter of “Sham Sunder & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1989 AIR (SC) 1982), "SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. ( 2005(8) SCC 89 )”, “N.K.Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh & Ors.”, “National Small Scale Industries Vs. Harmeetsingh Paintal “Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council ( (2011)8 Supreme 1 )”. 5. The petition and the submission of the learned Counsel for petitioners indicate that respondent no.1 (complainant) as an investor/depositor with Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. has paid Rs.30,00,000/-and Rs.15,00,000/-as deposits subject of two writ petitions. A statutory notice was sent, since the cheques did not honoured, received on 15.4.2002. Inspite of receipt and despite intimating them that the petitioners are incharge and/or responsible for the conduct of the management of day to day business and affairs of the company, the notice covered under the dishonoured cheques were not released. 6. On 13th June,2002, as directed by the learned Magistrate verification of complainant on oath was recorded by putting him questions. 6. On 13th June,2002, as directed by the learned Magistrate verification of complainant on oath was recorded by putting him questions. At such time indeed, the complainant has no role qua the manner in which the statement was recorded. The verification statement also informs that the complaint as a whole was referred. It was thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued the process. However, the learned Magistrate did not issue any process against original accused nos.5 and 6 i.e. Mr.Madan Relwani and Mr.Pramod Kumar Bhuchar, directors of the company. This basically demonstrates that the learned Magistrate was conscious to the text of the complaint and on personal verification, has passed the order of process. 7. It cannot be, therefore, agitated that such order was casual or disclose non application of mind. Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of process, if he is of the opinion that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding ahead. The verbose exploration of facts is not contemplated, if there is no legal requirements that the Trial Court should write order showing the reasons for process, there is no need to insist for a detail order at the stage of issuance of process. It is also well settled, at the stage of issuance of process, it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detail discussion on the merit or demerit of the case. At such time, the Magistrate has to consider the probabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter “Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1747)” in Criminal Appeal nos.612, 613 of 2012 on 4th April,2012 indicated in paragraph 11 as under:- “11. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.” 8. The complaint, so far as necessary averments are concerned, reads as under:- “1. I know the Accused abovenamed. The Accused no.1 is a Limited Company. The complaint, so far as necessary averments are concerned, reads as under:- “1. I know the Accused abovenamed. The Accused no.1 is a Limited Company. The Accused no.2 is its Chairman. The Accused no.3 is its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. The Accused no.4 to 6 amongst the others are Directors of the Accused no.1 Company. At all times as material, the Accused nos.2 to 6 were and/or are in-charge or and/or in control of the day to day affairs, business and the entire management of the accused no.1 company, including the taking of policy of decisions and also the business and affairs connected with the Accused no.1 company including the borrowing and repayment of monies. 2. I state that at the request of the Accused, I had deposited with the Accused no.1 Company a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty lacs only) vide by cheque which cheque was duly encashed by the Accused no.1 Company. I state that towards the repayment and/or refund of the said deposit amount of Rs.30,00,000/-and/or by way of discharge of other liability, the Accused No.1 company drew, issued and handed over to me a cheque bearing no.031151 dated 29.3.2002 for the said sum of Rs.30,00,000/-drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd/. Fort, Mumbai branch and drawn in my favour.” The statutory notice which was part of the complaint, primarily indicates that the petitioners were informed of their role while transacting with respondent no.1/complainant. It was also informed that the petitioner have categorical role in the transaction, however, there is no reply to the same. The petitioners as Chairman or the Directors were responsible for taking policy decision and also the affairs with the company. This is indicated in the cause title of the complaint. The petitioner no.1 indeed was representing the company-M/s.Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. in several other proceedings (Miscellaneous application no.49 of 2006 in Special Case no.34 of 2004). Special financial incentives were given by the Government by virtue of representation made by petitioner no.1, reflected in Notification dated 28th November,2006 (page 45 of the petition). The petitioners have actively transacted with complainant and cannot be permitted to disown vicarious liability. 9. The Verification on which much capital was made by the learned Counsel for petitioners -Mr.Upadhyay, will not be a ground of agitation as the Full Bench of this Court in the matter “Mr.Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. The petitioners have actively transacted with complainant and cannot be permitted to disown vicarious liability. 9. The Verification on which much capital was made by the learned Counsel for petitioners -Mr.Upadhyay, will not be a ground of agitation as the Full Bench of this Court in the matter “Mr.Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2011 ALL MR (Cri)64)” has confirmed that the Magistrate can rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant. He need not call upon the complainant to remain present in the Court nor to examine him or his witnesses on oath before taking decision to issue process. It is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the Verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, in this case the complainant was examined on oath. 10. The survey of above facts does not call for interference in the matter. Writ petitions are dismissed.