Being aggrieved by the said order dated 28.7.2003, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 moved the Delhi High Court under Section 482 Cr.
As indicated hereinbefore, separate petitions were filed, being Crl.
By its order dated 28.7.2003 the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the Respondents for discharge upon holding that under Section 118 E of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the 1881 Act, a holder of a cheque is presumed to be a holder in due companyrse unless and until the companytrary is proved by the accused.
C. No.2166 of 2003, which were heard and disposed of in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by discharging the respondents and quashing the companyplaint and the orders issuing summons.
M.C. No.5161 of 2003, Crl.
P.C. praying for recall of the order issuing summons and companysequent discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated on the companyplaint filed by the Petitioner Bank on the ground that there was numberprivity of companytract between the Petitioner Bank and the Respondent No.3, Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. ACIL .
On being presented for encashment on 16.5.1996, the said cheques were returned to the Petitioner Bank with the remarks funds insufficient.
M.C. No.5167 of 2003 allowing the said petition under Section 482 Cr.
On the other hand, the Petitioner Bank took the stand that being a holder in due companyrse, the Bank was entitled to maintain its companyplaint.
By the said judgment, three other petitions, being Crl.
C. No.5167 of 2003.
P.C. in Crl.
For whatever reason, the account of the Respondent No.1 is alleged to have become irregular companypelling the Bank to call upon the Respondent No.1 Company to regularize its packing credit account.
M.C. No.5162 of 2003 and Crl.
On the request made by the Respondents, the cheque was again presented for payment on 31.7.1996, but was again returned by the New Delhi Gulmohar Park Branch of the Petitioner Bank with the remark since account closed.
No.5093 of 2008, has been filed by the Central Bank of India against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Delhi High Court in Crl.
Consequently, the Bank has also filed SLP Crl.
No.5093 of 2008.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Special Leave Petition Crl.
M.C. No.2166 of 2003, were also disposed of in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, M s Asian Global Ltd. and its Director, Mr. Rajiv Jain.
It is only thereafter that the Petitioner Bank filed a companyplaint against the Respondents under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 120 B and 420 I.P.C., upon which companynizance was taken by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi, on 27.1.2001.
Aggrieved by the order issuing summons, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and other accused persons, being the Directors of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Companies, moved an application under Section 245 2 Cr.
The facts as disclosed indicate that in 1993 the Respondent No.1 had availed of various credit facilities from the Petitioner Bank, including packing credit facility and overdraft facility.
Several other petitions filed by Sarla Jain, a Director of the Respondent No.1 Company, also challenging the companyplaint filed by the Petitioner Bank and praying for discharge therefrom and quashing thereof, were allowed by the aforesaid judgment.
In order to discharge its liability to the Petitioner Bank, the Respondent No.3 Company issued Cheque No.255242 dated 16.5.1996, along with three other cheques, each for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of the Respondent No.1 Company which was deposited by the Respondent No.1 Company with the Petitioner Bank towards the outstanding dues of the Respondent No.1 Company.
Nos.5094, 5095 and 5096 of 2008, which are also being heard along with SLP Crl.
M.C. No.5162 of 2003 and Crl.
M.C. No.5161 of 2003, Crl.
It appears that companyporate guarantee for due repayment of the outstanding dues of the Respondent No.1 Company was given by the Respondent No.3 Company which was allegedly a sister companycern of the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.2 while being a Director of Respondent No.1 Company was a Joint Managing Director of the Respondent No.3 Company.
P.C. filed by the Respondents and discharging them and quashing the companyplaint filed by the Petitioner Bank and the process issued thereupon.
It is against the said order of the High Court that the present Special Leave Petitions have been filed by the Central Bank of India.
