2010 (8) TMI 1122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s an admitted position that the cheques in question were signed by the original accused No.5. In other words, neither the petitioner No.2, nor petitioner No.3 are signatories to the cheques in question. 3. It appears that there were business dealings between the petitioners and respondent no.2. Certain cheques were issued in favour of the respondent No.2 for and on behalf of the petitioner No.1 - company. Upon presentation, however, these cheques were returned by the bank with endorsement 'no image found' or 'drawee's signature incomplete / illegible'. Respondent No.2, thereupon, issued statutory notices to all the accused including the present petitioners. Since no payment was made within the notice period, he filed separate complaints for cheque bouncing before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Full details of the cheque amounts involved, date of return and the reasons for its dishonour as indicated in the petition, are given in the table below: Sr. No. Slp. Criminal App. Of 2010 Criminal case No. of 2009 Cheque Number Date Return Date Amount Total amount Endorse ment 1. 896 6731 924350, 925114 925115 18.9.08 19.9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....* 18. 913 6748 926275 925879 926281 9.11.08 14.11.08 14.11.08 5.5.09 405000.00 341935.00 395000.00 1141935.00 DIS­ILL* 19. 914 6749 924536 923421 924891 23.8.08 17.8.08 22.8.08 24.2.09 21.2.09 21.2.09 321450.00 323421.00 924891.00 914717.13 NIF & Signatur e differs * 20. 915 6750 924915 924549 923423 1.10.08 30.9.08 30.9.08 30.3.09 387710.00 327244.00 301782.13 1016736.13 DIS­ILL * 21. 916 6751 925089 925090 925091 29.10.08 30.10.08 31.10.08 29.4.09 359514.00 363001.00 363001.00 1085516.00 DIS­ILL * 22. 917 6752 925085 925087 925088 25.10.08 27.10.08 28.10.08 24.4.09 332660.00 359514.00 359514.00 1051697.00 DIS­ILL * 23. 918 6753 925022 925085 926080 23.10.08 24.10.08 25.10.08 23.4.09 346665.00 332669.00 86290.00 965624.00 DIS­ILL * 24. 919 6754 925082 925083 925084 17.10.08 18.10.08 20.10.08 11.4.09 382166.00 382166.00 382167.00 1146499.00 DIS­ILL * 25. 920 6755 924925 924914 924920 10.10.08 12.10.08 13.10.08 9.4.09 402440.00 387710.00 387175.00 11....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, need to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has opposed the petitions by filing detailed affidavit contending inter alia that cheques were issued on behalf of the company for payment of the goods received. Previously, cheques were signed by the same signatory were honoured. Petitioners with malafide intention and to defraud the complainant changed the authorised signatory. Cheques were signed on behalf of the company and the company can not, therefore, be exonerated. It is further contended that the petitioner is run and managed by one person i.e. Cyrus M. Bahadurji (petitioner No.2). He cannot shift his responsibility on some one else. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners contended that; (1) Signatory of the cheques - original accused No.5 had filed individual quashing petitions before this Court. All these petitions came to be allowed by order dated 19.04.2010 passed in Special Criminal Application No.2118 to 2143 of 2009 and connected matters. (2) That the reasons stated for dishonour of the cheques were 'no image found' or 'drawnee's signature is incomplete or illegible'. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or likewise. If the cheque is returned/bounced/dishonoured on the endorsement of "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image foundsignature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible", the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Hence, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner. 12. Considering the above and on perusal of the record of the case and the law laid down by the learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Tanna (supra) and plain reading of section 138 of the Act, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and grounds advanced by the learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a well considered decision. Therefore, I am inclined to allow all these petitions by quashing and setting aside the impugned process issued by the learned Magistrate pursuant to filing of Criminal cases arising out of dishonour of cheques on the ground of "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image foundsignature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegi....