Those cheques were presented on May, 1998 but were returned dishonoured on May 14, 1998.
The High Court took the view that the averments made in the companyplaint read alongwith the statement of the witness, prima facie, go to show that at the relevant time the appellant being the Director of the accused companypany was also incharge of and responsible for the business of the accused companypany.
It is stated that the appellant sent a reply on June 6, 1998 intimating that he was number incharge of the affairs of the companypany on the date of the alleged offence.
Accused Nos.
By the said order the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings emanating from the companyplaint filed by the respondent companypany against him and others under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The respondent companypany issued numberice to 7 persons including the appellant on May 29, 1998 requiring them to pay the amounts of cheques which were dishonoured on May 14, 1998.
3179 of 1999 dated December 16, 1999.
4 and 5 are the signatories of all the three cheques.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
The appellant challenges the validity of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
Leave is granted.
