The Managing Director, Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Entry Tax, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax

K.R. Prasada Rao, J.—This Criminal petition is filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure , by the accused in C.C. No. 146 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC., Hospet, seeking for quashing the above case registered against him for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ''The Act'').

The Respondent herein filed a complaint in the trial Court alleging that the Finance Manager of M/s. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited, situated at Torangallur, who is accused No. 2 in the case has issued a cheque dated 31.12.1998 for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- towards part payment of arrears of Entry Tax and the said cheque when presented by the Respondent for encashment in the State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch, Hospet on 4.1.1999 has been returned to the Respondent by the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch, Hospet, with the Bank endorsement dated 12.1.1999. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the said cheque has been returned unpaid for the reason that the cheque is to be signed jointly by the Finance Manager as well as by the present Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the above Company and the Company seal is to be put. According to the allegations in the complaint, accused No. 2-Finance Manager is the authorised signatory to issue the cheque and sign on behalf of the above Company. Inspite of a notice dated 23.1.1999 issued to both the accused intimating about the dishonour of the said cheque and calling upon them to make payment, they have not complied with the said payment. The Respondent therefore, filed the above complaint.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. it is only in cases where the cheque issued has been dishonoured for any of the grounds mentioned u/s 138 of the Act, such as amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that Bank, the drawer of the cheque will be liable for the offence under the said provision. Since in the instant case, the cheque has not been dishonoured for any of the above said grounds and it has been dishonoured only on the ground that the cheque does not bear the signature of the present Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Company and that it does not bear the seal of the Company, no case is made out for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. Thus, the above facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose any grounds to proceed against the Petitioner for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. I, therefore, find that the learned Magistrate was not justified in registering the case against the Petitioner and in ordering for issue of process to him.

In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the Petitioner in C.C. No. 146 of 1999 are hereby quashed.