Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Adarsh Bhagirath Bagaria vs Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited on 31 October, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.2424 of 2014 with CRR No.2423 of 2014 Adarsh Bhagirath Bagaria v.
Srei Equipment Finance Private Limited Mr.Dipanjan Chatterjee Ms.Ahana Sikdar .. for the petitioner.
Ms.Sutapa Sanyal Mr.D.Bhattacharya Mr.Arijit Roy. .. for the Opposite Party. Heard on: 15.9.2014 and 25.9.2014.
Judgement on: October 31, 2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.-
The petitioner has been facing his prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with the aid of section 141 of the said Act in connection with Case Nos.C/9519/2014 and C/19824/2013, now pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court at Calcutta. Since the quashing has been sought for on identical ground, the same were taken up for hearing together.
It is submitted that the dishonoured cheques in the aforesaid cases were issued on November 15, 2013 and April 12, 2013, whereas in the first case, the petitioner has resigned from the post of Director of the accused- Company, Spanco Limited with effect from November 10, 2012 by submitting From No.32 on November 12, 2012 and in the second case, he resigned with effect from March 29, 2010 from the accused-company, Spanco BPO Services Limited and From No.32 was submitted on May 24, 2010.
It is, therefore, contended that at the material time, when the cheques were issued, the petitioner was no more a Director in any of the accused-Companies, therefore, his prosecution for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with the aid of section 141 of the said Act is totally illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.
The contention of the learned advocate of the petitioner has not been disputed by the counsel of the complainant/opposite party.
This court has carefully gone through the materials on record and find no reason to take a different view.
Now having regard to the facts as aforesaid and relying on the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 520 and Harshendra Kumar v. Rebatilal Koley, reported in 2011 (3) SCC 351 the complaint case No.9519/2014, pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and No.C/19824/2013, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, stand quashed. This order of quashing shall confine to the petitioner alone.
In the result, both the criminal revisions stand allowed and disposed of.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on urgent basis.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) sm.