Arun Kumar Goel, J. - (1.)Both these revision petitions have been taken up together for the purpose of disposal since the common question of law arises for consideration and the facts are being noticed hereinafter.
(2.)Cr. Revision Petition No. 88197. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner on the allegations that M/s. Wadhawa Pharmochem Private Limited. Kala Amb had obtained certain financial assistance from it. The raw material, semi-finished and finished goods of this company stand hypothecated with the respondent-bank and the sale proceeds of such products were to be deposited by the company in its cash credit limit account with the bank. This company sold goods worth Rs. 8,18,500,35 to the petitioner against three bills detailed in para No.3 of the complaint and issued a cheque favouring M/s. Wadhwa Pharmochem Private Limited for the said amount drawn at Bank of Baroda. Jawahar Nagar. New Delhi. This cheque was purchased by the respondent-bank and 75% payment was made on the assurance that the bills would be retired by the petitioner before taking delivery of the goods through transport. Thus, the respondent-bank became the holder in due course of the cheque in question. The payment of this cheque was made as aforesaid, to M/s. Wadhawa Pharmochem Private Limited. However, when the cheque was sent for encashment, it was not en-cashed by the banker of the petitioner. Notice was issued by registered post as well as under certificate of posting oh 10-7-1996. Since the payment was not made within the stipulate period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. hence the complaint i.e.. Case No. 92/3 of 1996, titled as State Bank of India v. Munish Mehra, was filed by the respondent-bank wherein the petitioner has been ordered to be summoned. The date of service of the notice is neither mentioned in the complaint nor it is given in the preliminary evidence of the respondent-bank which was recorded on 19-11-1996. During the course of hearing of this revision petition, affidavit of Shri S.S. Randhawa was filed on behalf of the respondent-bank wherein in para No.4, it was specifically stated by the deponent that on checking the, original postal record, he found that the registered letter was delivered to Munish Mehra on 14-7-1996. In the affidavit filed to counter the averments made in the affidavit on behalf of the respondent-bank, this fact has not been specifically denied. In fact, the reply is evasive and vague and its effect would be considered hereinafter.
(3.)Cr. Revision Petition No. 89197: In this Case also, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been filed by the respondent-bank against the petitioner on the allegations that a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,30,700 was issued by the petitioner favouring M/s. Wadhawa Pharmochem Private Limited which was drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, New Delhi. Since M/s. Wadhawa Pharmochem Private Limited, Kala Amb had obtained certain financial assistance from the respondent-bank, its raw material, semi-finished and finished goods stood hypothecated with the respondent-bank and the company was to deposit the sale proceeds in its cash credit limit account with the respondent-bank. The cheque issued by the petitioner to this company was purchased by the respondent-bank and 75% payment against it was made. Thus, the bank became the holder of the cheque in due course. The cheque when sent for collection by the respondent bank to the banker of the petitioner, it was dishonoured with the remarks Tnot arranged. Notice dated 14-8-1996 under Section, 138 of the Act was issued to the petitioner, which was served upon him on 20-8-1996. Since the payment was not made within the stipulated period, therefore, Case No. 95/3 of 1996, titled as State Bank of India v. Grow Gold Extra and Leasing Limited, was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court has ordered that there exists a strong prima facie case against the company, the director of which is stated to be Munish Mehra, as such, he was ordered to be summoned. Hence, this revision petition to quash the order for summoning the company through Munish Mehra.