ANIL RAMPRATAP GOYAL Vs. KATYAYANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to these Writ Petitions are the same and the questions proposed to be considered therein also are identical. Therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The respondent filed complaints bearing numbers 1732 of 2016 and 1715 of 2016 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the Act", for short) against accused no.1, a partnership firm namely, M/s.Rampratap Ghanshamdas Drugs Division, Swami Complex, Sarojini Devi Road, Jalna, and three others, on the say that they are partners of accused no.1. The present petitioner is accused no.4. According to the respondent, accused nos.2 and 3 as well as the present petitioner, being partners of accused no.1, were looking after the day-today business transactions when the cheques in question were issued. They were responsible for the conduct of the business of accused no.1. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the respondent and requested to lent certain amount for the business of accused no.1. Accordingly, the respondent lent Rs. 10,00,000/on 04.10.2013 and Rs. 6,00,000/on 19.08.2013 by issuing cheques bearing numbers 112808 and 071467 drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Jalna. The petitioner encashed those cheques and utilised the said amounts for the business of accused no.1. It is further stated that the petitioner paid nominal interest on the amounts of loan. However, accused nos.1 to 3 and the present petitioner failed to repay the loan amounts to the respondent, despite repeated demands. Ultimately, accused nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner issued cheques in the sums of Rs. 10,00,000/and Rs. 6,00,000/drawn on Sundarlal Sawji Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jintur, Branch Jalna on 30.03.2016, which were signed by accused no.2 being the authorised signatory of accused no.1 - partnership firm. The cheques were dishonoured and returned to the respondent with the remark "exceeds arrangement" on 206.2016. The respondent sent demand notices on 21.07.2016 and called upon accused nos.1 to 3 and the present petitioner to pay the cheque amounts. Accused nos.1 and 2 refused to accept the notices. The petitioner (accused no.4) received the notices. However, he sent the replies dated 25.07.2016 and denied his liability to pay the cheque amounts, on the say that he had no concern whatsoever with the partnership firm since there has been change in the partnership. The respondent then filed complaints for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the Act", for short) for dishonour of the above mentioned cheques. The learned Magistrate considered the contents of the complaints, supported by the affidavit of the respondent and the documents annexed thereto and found sufficient grounds to proceed against accused nos.1 to 4. He, therefore, issued process for the said offence as per the orders dated 17.11.2016.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the orders issuing process against the petitioner, he filed Criminal Revision Nos.7 of 2017 and 8 of 2017. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, heard both sides and found that there was no substance in the claims made by the petitioner and therefore, dismissed the said Revision Applications vide the common judgment and order dated 15.01.2018. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred these Writ Petitions.