J.C. Verma, J. - (1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a non-banking financial company and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the Managing Director and the Director of the said company. While accepting the fixed deposits payable on or after the maturity of their deposits the company had issued refund orders/interest warrants provided by the S.B.I. to its depositors. The respondent No. 2 had made certain deposits and the proper refund orders and interest given were issued in his favour which were to be encashed on or after 27.3.1998. It is stated that because of certain unilateral decisions against the petitioner by the S.B.I., the facility to be drawn at par was withdrawn and, therefore, there was the alleged default on behalf of the company for making the proper refund. The respondent No. 2 proceeded for realisation of the amount. The money having not been paid, a notice is said to have been issued to the company which is said to have been replied, however, ultimately the respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cognizance on which was taken on 24.8.1998 by the trial court. Aggrieved against the action of. taking of cognizance, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 18.8.99. The petitioner has approached this court in challenging the order dated 24.8.1998 and 18.8.1999.
(2.) It is the submission of the petitioner that as a matter of fact they had not closed the account, but the banker suo moto and unilaterally and suddenly withdrew the facility and closed the account for which the petitioners cannot be fastened with criminal liability. It is stated that they were not at fault. It is further stated that because of the reason that the respondents had not drawn the amount on 27.3.1998 i.e. the date when the liability had arisen, therefore, the petitioner was not liable for any criminal action. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2, Director of the company is not liable.
(3.) Notice was issued to the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in the misc. petition and the same are liable to be dismissed.;