- (1.) The present three revisional applications relate to identical facts and points of law and accordingly have been heard at a time.
(2.) In C.R.R. No. 1997 of 2008, the Petitioner, by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 400 of 2007 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act now pending before the 1st Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
(3.) Grievances of the Petitioner, as ventilated by learned Counsel, may briefly be stated as follows: The present Respondent No. 1 and Petitioner had business deal with each other. Complainant company despatched tea valued at Rs. 3,94,000/- to the accused No. 1 company covered by necessary papers and accordingly raised bill for the said amount being the value of 'made tea'. Accused No. 1 company towards payment of the said amount being their legally enforceable debt and subsisting liabilities issued one post dated cheque bearing No. 307974 dated 14-3-2007 for Rs. 3,94,000/- only drawn on UTI Bank, Kolkata under the signature of accused No. 3 to the knowledge of the other accused persons with clear promise and assurance that upon presentation of the said cheque, the same would definitely be honoured. The cheque was accordingly presented by the complainant company to its banker i.e. Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Kolkata for encashment. It was returned dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient fund'. The complainant company thereafter contacted the accused persons who requested the complainant to bear with them as they were facing financial hardship. The complainant company was asked to present the cheque again in July, 2007. On the basis of such assurance and with the legitimate expectation, the cheque was presented by the complainant company to its banker i.e. Allahabad Bank, Jalpaiguri branch on 30th July, 2007. It too bounced vide bank intimation dated 31st July, 2007 showing the reason that the account had been closed. This reflects the dishonest intention of the accused persons. The complainant thereafter issued demand notice through its lawyer dated 10th August, 2007 requesting the accused persons to arrange payment of the said amount of Rs. 3,94,000/-. The accused No. 1 company despite receipt of the said notice did not make any arrangement for payment of the said amount. It rather resorted to evasive replies and thereby attempted to escape the penal liabilities. The requirement issuing of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 139 of the N.I. Act was duly complied with and notices were sent at the correct address of the drawers of the cheque by registered speed post. Thus, the accused No. 1 company as well as its directors were duly served with the legal notice dated 10th August, 2007.;