Brief facts Indra Kumar Patodia and Mahendra Kumar Patodia the appellants herein are accused in Criminal Complaint being CC No.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellants have filed the above appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
The aforesaid cheques were deposited by the companyplainant on 05.04.1998 and were returned by the Bank on 06.04.1998 with the remark exceeds arrangement.
By impugned companymon judgment dated 17/18.03.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court, disposed of the matter by answering point No.1 in the affirmative holding that the companyplaint under Section 138 of the Act is maintainable and when such companyplaint is subsequently verified by the companyplainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after verification, it cannot be said that the said companyplaint is number entia and the prosecution of such companyplaint is maintainable.
On 30.07.1998, the Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the verification statement and issued summons against the appellants and respondent No.3 herein.
287 and 288 of 2009 before the learned single Judge of the High Court.
The appellants preferred an application being C.C. No.
Respondent No.1 is the companyplainant and the manufacturers of Partially Oriented Yarn POY and other textile goods.
1 and had issued 57 cheques between 02.12.1997 to 09.03.1998 for the payment of the same.
and 2 If answer to point No.1 is negative then whether it is a mere irregularity and it can be cured subsequently and whether such subsequent amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the companyplaint or whether it would hit by the Law of Limitation.
1 In the matter of companyplaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act whether the companyplaint without the signature of the companyplainant, inspite of verification of companyplaint, is number entia and whether numberprosecution can lie on such companyplaint?
287 and 288 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench held that the companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in short the Act without signature is maintainable when such companyplaint was subsequently verified by the companyplainant.
Challenging the said order, the appellants and respondent No.3 herein filed an application in the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay at Bombay bearing Criminal Revision Application No.
Pursuant to the same, Respondent No.1 issued a numberice dated 16.04.1998 to the appellants and demanded the aforesaid amount for which they replied that they have number received any statement of accounts maintained by the companyplainant regarding the transactions with the accused.
749 of 2003.
The learned single Judge, by order dated 09.07.2009, referred two points for companysideration by the larger Bench, viz.,
By Order dated 08.10.2004, the Sessions Judge dismissed the said application as number maintainable.
Challenging the acquittal of the accused persons, respondent No.1 herein the companyplainant, filed appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.
From time to time, Respondent No.
In addition to the same, Respondent No.3, vide letter dated 29.05.1998, made various claims for the rate difference, discounts etc.,
By order dated 26.11.2008, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the companyplaint and acquitted the accused persons.
Respondent No.3 herein is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, presently under liquidation and official liquidator has been appointed by the High Court, which has alleged to have issued the cheques to respondent No.1.
Further, it was held that since the answer to point No.1 was in affirmative, it was number necessary to decide point No.2 and directed to place the appeals for deciding the same on merits.
1332/9/1999 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai for recalling the process issued against them.
These appeals are filed against the companymon final judgment and order dated 17/18.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal Nos.
3 used to place orders for the supply of POY to Respondent No.
Heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned companynsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, learned companynsel for respondent No.3.
Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned senior companynsel for the appellants after taking us through the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code and the order of the learned single Judge as well as the reference answered by the Division Bench raised the following companytentions i the companyplaint under Section 141 in respect of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Act without signature of the companyplainant is number maintainable ii there is numberprovision in the Act regarding verification.
Sathasivam,J. Leave granted.
By order dated 28.08.2003, the Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissed the said application.
