2001 (3) TMI 1083

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the N.I. Act" for short). 3. The complaint allegations are that : the accused-petitioners happened to be the dealers of the product of M/s. Nicco Corporation Limited. The products of the said Corporation, which were purchased by the complainant and stocked with him as on January 21, 1997, were transferred to the office/godown of the accused, who, in turn, issued the cheque in question bearing No. 656816, dated March 31, 1997, drawn on State Bank of India, Attavara Branch, Man-galore, for Rs. 1,95,139 in the complainant's favour towards the value of the said materials. When the cheque was presented for encashment to the bank on April 2, 1997, the same bounced by it with its endorsement indi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Ashok Hegde v. Jathin V. Attawan in support of the contention that any such premature complaint is liable to be quashed in law. 5. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that the said demand notice dated April 11, 1997, issued to accused No. 1-company, of which accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the directors, was in fact served on it on April 16, 1997, itself, though the said notices on accused Nos. 2 and 3 were served on April 21, 1997. 6. It was argued by Mr. R.B. Deshpande for the respondent-complainant that the service of demand notice on accused No. 1-company was sufficient notice to its directors-accused Nos. 2 and 3, as well since they were its directors. Support for this contention was sought to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w to this effect is also laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Dilip Kumar Jaiswal v. Debapriya Banerjee [1992] 73 Comp Cas 434. It is held therein that a separate notice upon the executives or the directors is not required to be served for compliance with proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for prosecuting them along with the company for the offence alleged to be committed by the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, in view of this emerging legal principle, the complaint filed in the instant case on May 6, 1997, was clearly after expiry of the fifteen days period next after service on April 16, 1997, of the demand notice stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 138. Thus the complai....