- (1.) This revisional application is for quashing the proceeding, being Case No. C. 2067 of 1989, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ninth Court, Alipore. The facts relevant for the appreciation of the points raised in the instant revision may be briefly stated as follows : In discharge of its liability, a company named Ambitious General Finance and Housing Co. (P.) Ltd. issued a cheque No. 018455 drawn by its director on September 10, 1989, for Rs. 15,000 in favour of the complainant, Subhas Chandra Mondal, who is the opposite party in the instant revision. Though the complainant presented it to the bank for payment on September 10, 1989, yet it bounced and the bank's intimation in this regard was sent to the complainant on September 12, 1989. The cheque was presented to the bank for payment for a second time but it bounced then also. Then the cheque was presented to the bank for payment for the third time on November 16, 1989. This time also it bounced and the bank's intimation in this regard was received by the complainant on November 17, 1989. The said company also issued in discharge of its liability another cheque No. 018456 drawn by its director on September 20, 1989, for Rs. 10,000 in favour of the complainant. This cheque was presented to the bank for payment for the first time on September 22, 1989, for the second time on September 27, 1989, and for the third time on November 9, 1989. But the cheque bounced all the three times. For the dishonour on presentation for the third time, the complainant received the bank's intimation in this regard on November 10, 1989. The complainant is said to have sent a notice in writing demanding payment of the amounts of the cheque on November 18, 1989, as required under Section 138(b) of the Act and the accused persons are said to have received the said notice on November 22, 1989. The instant proceeding under Section 138 of the Act was started on presentation of a petition of complaint by the complainant on December 21, 1989, and it gave rise to Case No. C. 2067 of 1989, now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ninth Court, Alipore.
(2.) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the instant revisional application for quashing the aforesaid proceeding.
(3.) Mr. Deb, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that cheque No. 018455, dated September 10, 1989, for Rs. 15,000 was presented to the bank for payment on September 10, 1989, and returned unpaid and that the bank's intimation in this regard was given to the payee, i.e., the complainant-opposite party on September 12, 1989. He has also submitted that cheque No. 018456, dated September 20, 1989, for Rs. 10,000 was presented to the bank for payment on September 22, 1989, and returned unpaid and that the bank's intimation in this regard was given to the payee, i.e., the complainant-opposite party on September 23, 1989. He has argued that, as the notice in writing demanding payment of the amounts of the said dishonoured cheques was not given in the instant case within fifteen days of the receipt of information by the complainant from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid, as required under Section 138(b) of the Act, the instant case under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. He has also argued that, by subsequent presentation and dishonour of the cheques, the said period of limitation cannot be saved. He has further argued that the company, Ambitious General Finance and Housing Company (P.) Ltd., is the principal offender, that the accused persons, being its director and officers are only vicariously liable and that as the principal offender has not been impleaded as an accused, the instant proceeding should fail and should be quashed. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate took cognizance mechanically without applying his judicial mind inasmuch as there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners were the persons who, at the time the offence was committed, were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.;