- (1.) THE appeal and the revisional application are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. M/s. Anshul properties Private Limited which is a company registered under the Companies Act and which is the appellant in CRA No. 149 of 2009 and also the petitioner in CRR No. 2597 of 2003 lodged a petition of complaint with the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, calcutta being Case No. C/813/1999 against the M/s. Allied Resins Chemicals limited, a company registered under the companies Act 1956, one Suroj Ratan mundhra, Managing Director of the said company, Tapan Sen, P. Gunguly, Ramesh kr. Vijoy and Goutam Mitra who are said to be the authorised signatories and/or principal officers of the said accused No. 1 company alleging offences under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N. I. Act. Allegedly towards the discharge of the debt or liability arising out of bill discounting the accused No. 1 company issued in favour of the complainant company a cheque bearing no. 824177 dated 29th January, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 8,41,123/ -. The cheque was signed by the accused No. 2 in his capacity as Chairman and Managing Director of the accused No. 1. Again another cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being No. 824079 dated 20th July, 1998 was drawn in favour of the complainant company and signed by the accused Nos. 3 and 4 in their capacities as authorised signatories. Both the cheques were drawn on Allahabad Bank, Red Cross place, Calcutta. Both the cheques were dishonoured on the ground of "exceeds arrangement". Statutory notice was personally delivered at the registered office of the accused No. 1 company on 2nd February, 1999, and one Mr. Goutam Mitra as an employee of the said accused No. 1 company received the notice. No payments having been paid cause of action allegedly arose on 22nd February, 1990 and the petition of complaint was filed on 10th March, 1999 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence and issued process.
(2.) AN application was filed by the accused persons before the learned Magistrate praying for their discharge which was rejected on 28th September, 2001. Against the order of discharge the accused Nos. 2-6 filed a revisional application before the learned sessions Judge being Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2001. The learned Judge by judgment and order dated 16th August, 2003 allowed the revisional application, set aside the order dated 28th September, 2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta and dropped the proceedings against the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the ground of no sufficient evidence having been made out against them and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed the case against only the accused No. 1 company. The ground of dropping of the proceeding as against the accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 was that in his examination under Section 200, Cr. P. C. Bijoy Prakash Goel who stood for the complainant did not say as to how the accused Nos. 2-6 were incharge of and responsible to the accused no. 1 company on the date of the commission of the offence. Learned Judge observed that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not record as to how he could be satisfied on the basis of examination of the complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused Nos. 2-6. According to the learned judge as the complainant did not say in his examination under Section 200, Cr. P. C. that the accused No. 206 were in-charge and were responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct and business of that company on the date of the commission of the offence the petition of complaint was not maintainable. Against the judgment and order of the learned City Sessions Judge, the complainant company filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. before this court on 3rd December, 2003 contending inter alia that the order of the learned City sessions Judge is illegal and contrary to the position of law.
(3.) THE said revisional application being crr No. 2597 of 2003 was moved on 17th december, 2003 before this Court and there was an order of stay of operation of the impugned order of the learned City Sessions judge dated 16th August, 2003 for a limited period of three weeks after the Christmas vacation with liberty to the parties to pray for extension and/or modification and/or cancellation of the said interim order upon notice to the other side. The matter of the fact is that the interim order was not extended thereafter not because of refusal by the Court, but for non-renewal of the prayer.;