TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Instruments Act (N.I. Act) vide common judgment dated 28-8-2009. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned. In view of the concession given at the Bar and the reasons given in the applications, delay in filing of the appeals against the impugned judgment is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. Crl.L.P.No. 136/2010 Crl.L.P.No. 137/2010 Crl.L.P.No. 139/2010 2. Vide this order, I propose to dispose of three leave petitions being Crl.L.P.No. 136/2010, Crl.L.P.No. 137/2010 and Crl.L.P.No. 139/2010 seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 28-8-2009 vide which he dismissed the three complaints filed by the appellants/peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e accused persons, those cheques have been misused by the complainant after his resignation and the cheques in question were never issued in discharge of any debt or liability. The accused persons also claimed that on the retirement of the complainant as a Director of the accused company, instructions were issued to the bank withdrawing the name of the complainant as an authorised joint signatory in respect of bank account of the company and instead instructions were issued to the bank that the bank account of the company would be operated under joint signatures of respondents No. 2 Shubhendu Shekhar Awasthi and respondent No. 3 Ms.Mukta Awasthi who were inducted as Directors of the company. To prove this, the accused persons examined a wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not have known about the facts. Therefore, the accused persons cannot be permitted to take shelter of the aforesaid technical defence to escape the liability under section 138 N.I. Act. 7. Learned Mr.Aditya Guar, Advocate appearing for the respondent, on the contrary, has contended that unless the cheque is signed by the authorised signatory/s, it cannot be termed as a valid cheque and learned M.M. has, therefore, taken a correct view in holding that the cheques in question not being signed by the second joint signatory were not valid cheques, as such he has rightly dismissed the complaints under section 138 N.I. Act. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions of rival parties, it would be useful to have a look on section 138 N.I. Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither by the clearing house or by the bank whether paying or receiving payment, immediately on generation of an electronic image for transmission, substituting the further physical movement of the cheque in writing." 10. On plain reading of aforesaid definition, it is clear that a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker authorising him to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque on demand to the drawee and debit the same to the account of the drawer. 11. Shri Vivek, Executive of UTI Bank(now Axis Bank) Pitam Pura Branch deposed on the basis of the record of the bank account maintained in the bank by respondent No. 1 company. He deposed that as per the instructions of respondent No. 1 company, mode of operation of its bank a....