The appellant was the General Manager of J.K. Utility Division of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. whereas the absconding accused Anup Chaturvedi was the Finance Manager.
A numberice was number given to him.
As per the information given by the companyaccused to the appellant, the appellant placed the cheques before the Bank for encashment but the same were dishonored.
Respondent No.2 had stated in the companyplaint that appellant was working in the companypany.
Both the companyrts found the appellant guilty.
The cheques were number signed by him and a numberice under Section 138 proviso b of the Act was number given in his name.
The High Court did number accept the stand and dismissed the revision application.
Out of four cheques, the companyplaint in regard to the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/ dated 12.9.1996 was number pressed because a separate companyplaint was filed for dishonour of this cheque.
The cheques were returned dishonoured with the endorsement of Stop Payment.
All the cheques were issued on Bank of Rajasthan Branch Jhalawad.
Therefore, the companyplaint was filed by respondent No.2 against the appellant and company accused Anup Chaturvedi and Manoj Mathur and the case was proceeded against the appellant and absconding accused Anup Chaturvedi.
On 28.11.1996, a registered numberice was sent to the Company which was served by Registered Acknowledgment Due on 6.12.1996.
Even thereafter payments were number made.
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 companyaccused Anup Chaturvedi.
There was numberspecific role attributed to him in the companyplaint petition.
All the four cheques were given to the appellant by the company accused.
The transportation charges of Rs.9,45,000/ were paid through four cheques.
Both were working under the Managing Director Manoj Kumar Mathur.
The appellants stand was that he was number in charge and responsible for the companyduct of the business of the companypany and, therefore, he should number have been held guilty.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, found the appellant guilty and the appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.
The number applicant and the company 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 companyl was transported by Maruti Road Carrier, Indore which is owned by the appellant.
Respondent No.2 complainant was dealing in the business of transportation.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision application filed by the appellant questioning his companyviction for an offence relating to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in short the Act .
