- (1.) BOTH the petitions under Section 482, Cr. RC. are being decided vide common order as point involved is common. Brief facts giving rise to the petitions are that, complainant-respondent No. 1, smt. Shanta and her husband Shri Tarachand filed separate complaints in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the accused petitioner and the other 10 accused-respondents with the averments that Shri Ashok kumar Ajmera is the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 company, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, M. K. Agarwal and Kanti Kumar were authorised signatories of the company and respondent Nos. 4 to 11 were the Directors of this company. Two cheques each of Rs. 50,000/- in each case were issued in favour of both the complainants on behalf of respondents company under signatures of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. All the four cheques were returned unpaid for want of funds. These cheques were issued with knowledge and consent of all the Directors. The respondent Nos. 4 to 11, begin Directors of the company were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Notices were issued to all the accused-respondents but they did not arrange the payment of the cheques.
(2.) AFTER making an inquiry under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , the learned Magistrate took cognizance in both the cases under Section 138, the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 (in short 'the Act of 1881') vide order dated 23. 8. 1997. Thereafter, an application in each case was filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner making a prayer to dismiss the complaint against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate dismissed both the applications vide order dated 4. 6. 1998. Hence, these petitions.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on the record. To appreciate the rival submissions, the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, 1881 are reproduced as under : offences by companies (1) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly : provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act, has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. ;