LexRAMRAJSINGH versus STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1130 RAMRAJSINGH II. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1103 of 2003) APRIL 15, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 141 - C Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against appellant working · as general manager of the company- Conviction of appellant u/s. 138 by courts below - Justification of - Held: Not justified . - There was no evidence that appellant was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company D - He was not given any notice nor specific role was attributed , to him in the complaint petition - Hence, conviction not maintainable. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. E 2007(4) SCC 70 and N.K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh and Ors. 2007 (9) sec 481, relied on. F Case Law Reference: 2007(4) sec 70) 2001 (9) sec 481 Relied on. Relied on. Paras 9, 11 Paras 10, 11 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1103 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.10.2002 of the High G Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Indore in Crt. Rev. No. 584/2002. H Samir Ali Khan, Rashid, Gaurav Dhama and Prashant Chaudhary for the Appellants. 1130 RAMRAJSINGH v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. 1131 Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Ajya Amitraj, Vibha Datta Makhija and A Vijay K. Jain for .the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh B High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision application filed by the appellant questioning his conviction for an offence relating to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act., 1881 (in short the 'Act'). 2. Respondent No.2-complainant was dealing in the business of transportation. The appellant was the General · Manager of J.K. Utility Division of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. whereas c the absconding accused Anup Chaturvedi was the Finance Manager. Both were working under the Managing Direct.or D Manoj Kumar Mathur. The non-applicant and the co-accused Anup Chaturvedi placed order No.U/QMR/Coal 96028 dated 7 .8.1996 with one Vinayak Coal Corporation. In pursuance of this order, the coal was transported by Maruti Road Carrier, Indore which is owned by the appellant. The transportation charges of Rs.9,45,000/- were paid through four cheques. All E the four cheques were given to the appellant by the co-accused. 3. As per the infonnation given by the co-accused to the appellant, the appellant placed the cheques before the Bank for encashment but the same were dishonored. All the cheques F were issued on Bank of Rajasthan Branch Jhalawad. The cheques were returned dishonoured with the endorsement of 'Stop Payment'. On 28.11.1996, a registered notice was sent to the Company which was served by "Registered Acknowledgment Due" on 6.12.1996. Even thereafter payments G were not made. Therefore, the complaint was filed by respondent No.2 against the appellant and co-accused Anup Chaturvedi and Manoj Mathur and the case was proceeded against the appellant and absconding accused Anup Chaturvedi. H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A 4. Respondent No.2 had stated in the complaint that appellant was working in the company. The order of transportation was placed by him, the material was received by him and the cheques were given to him by the appellant and co-accused Anup Chaturvedi. Out of four cheques, the 8 complaint in regard to the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 12.9.1996 was not pressed because a separate complaint was filed for dishonour of this cheque. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, found the appellant guilty and the appeal was dismissed by C learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. Both the courts found the appellant guilty. The appellant's stand was that he was not in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and, therefore, he should not have been held guilty. The cheques were not signed by him and a D notice under Section 138 proviso (b) of the Act was not given in his name. The High Court did not accept the stand and dismissed the revision application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there E is no evidence that the appellant was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. A notice was not given to him. There was no specific role at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.