If that be so the matter needs further probe by way of trial and the petitioner cannot claim companyplete innocence at this stage in view of the letter dated 10th May, 1997 prima facie indicating that the cheque in question was issued on this date and the petitioner was the Director of the Company on 10th May, 1997 as he himself admitted that he resigned from the companypany with effect from 19th June, 1997.
2,50,000/ , Rs.
4583, 4580 and 4575 of 2003.
A companyplaint petition came to be filed by the companyplainant in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the appellant as also the said Company.
8 signed the said cheques for and on behalf of the Company.
The Managing Director of the said Company as also the other Directors were also arrayed as accused therein.
138015, 138016 and 138017 for a sum of Rs.
The companyplainant Respondent No.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said petitions have been dismissed by the High Court stating The learned trial judge while dealing with the recalling order of the petitioner made specific mention of the fact that the cheque in question was post dated cheque issued through letter dated 10th May, 1997.
It was alleged that Shri K.K. Pilania Accused No.
Inter alia on the premise that the appellant had resigned from the Directorship of the Company before the date of issuance of the cheques and much before the deposit thereof by the drawee with its bank, and thus, he was number liable for the action of the Company, applications for quashing of the orders taking companynizance of the offence in the said companyplaint petitions were filed by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi which were marked as Crl.
The said cheques were deposited in a bank but were dishonoured.
2,50,000/ and Rs.
3 and Shri N.K. Munjal Accused No.
It supplied its product to the Company.
2 is manufacturer and supplier of chemical companypounds of different kinds.
4645 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Allegedly, a sum of Rs.
The Company issued three cheques, as numbericed hereinbefore, in favour of the companyplainant.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
13,36,923/ was due and payable to the companyplainant by the Company.
2 herein.
3,03,952.60, respectively in favour of Elkay International Private Limited, Respondent No.
The appellant is, thus, before us.
M.C. Nos.
Cognizance was taken against the appellant and other accused persons.
Appellant herein was a Director of a public limited companypany, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, known as VHEL Industries Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company .
The Company issued three cheques bearing Nos.
