TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Kumar Building and Construction Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at B-55/A Kalkaji, New Delhi. Mr. Anuj Kumar is the Director of the aforesaid Construction Company having holding of 80% of the profit share and was in charge of/responsible for the day to day functioning and important decision making powers of the said company. 3. The Petitioner herein joined the company as a Director in the year 2009 with 20% holding in the profit share of the said company. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that the company was going through a rough period in the year 2011-12 and as the company was on the verge of its closure, Mr. Anuj Kumar w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Mr. Anuj Kumar also brought into the notice of the Petitioner that he himself has also issued 3 cheques as security cheque on the above-said terms and conditions with Respondent No.2. 7. Thereafter, on 23.03.2013, Mr. Anuj Kumar called the Petitioner to sign 3 Company's cheques as joint authorized signatory of the said cheques. The Petitioner duly signed the aforesaid cheques as requested by Mr. Anuj Kumar, who was the Managing Director and primary stake holder of the Company. Thereafter, as their company was not doing well, the Petitioner, who was a very junior stake holder of the company was left with no other choice but to defacto dis-associate himself from the company and l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ordersheet of the Trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complaint in question was filed on 02.05.2013, however, the cognizance was taken by the Court by issuing summons against the petitioner on 17.04.2017. Therefore, the punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is two years and the cognizance taken by the Trial Court is after more than four years. Therefore, the complaint filed by respondent no.2 is liable to be rejected. 11. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the case S. Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2066 whereby the Hon'ble Court has held that:- "Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. The order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a Court". 24. In the light of the scheme of the Act and various provisions of the Code, we fully endorse the above view and hold that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is the date of filing of the complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate. In the case on hand, as pointed out earlier, the complaint was filed on 3-6-1998 which is well within the time and on the direction of the Magistrate, verification was recorded by solemn affirmation by authorized representatives of the complainant and after recording the statement and securing hi....