TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt of the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein, who is A2 in the above C.C. filed a petition to discharge him, which was dismissed by the learned magistrate and was confirmed in revision by the learned First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. This petition is filed questioning the dismissal of the revision. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is neither a director nor a person-in-charge of the company and is in no way connected with the affairs of the company and had neither opened nor is operating the bank account of the company and had not issued the cheque which was dishonoured, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for Rs. 20,00,000 and for Rs. 5,00,000 from the first respondent as loan, and since the cheque in connection with whose bouncing the C.C., was filed by the first respondent was in fact issued for repayment of the said loan, the petitioner is also liable to be prosecuted under section 138 of the Act and since the learned sessions judge by a well reasoned order, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the magistrate refusing to discharge the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. 5. The case, in brief, of the first respondent is that the petitioner who is the owner of Aashiana Investments borrowed Rs. 25,00,000 on behalf of the company and when he sought repayment of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A. Sudershan's case (supra) it is held that service of statutory notice is a condition precedent for maintenance of the complaint under section 138 of the Act. In Central Bank of India's case (supra) it is held that a cheque can be presented any number of times within its validity period and statutory notice under section 138(b) of the Act, for which no form is prescribed, must be issued within fifteen days of receipt of information and there must be a demand for payment of the cheque amount in the notice. In Kalyani Refineries Ltd.'s case (supra) it is held that for constituting an offence under section 138 of the Act the cheque, which was dishonoured should have been drawn on an account maintained by the drawer having a legally enforceabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the petitioner, in order to provide financial assistance to A1, took a loan of Rs. 25,00,000 from him and issued stamped receipts, and since the cheque for Rs. 25,00,000 drawn by A1 in discharge of the loan due to him, taken through the petitioner, was dishonoured both A1 and the petitioner are liable for punishment under section 138 of the Act. The cheque which was dishonoured in this case was not drawn by the petitioner but was drawn on an account maintained by the company. It is not the case of the first respondent that the petitioner is a director or a person in charge of the affairs of the company, and takes care of its day-to-day affairs and/or business. Even assuming that the petitioner is the debtor of the first respondent, an....