Delhi High Court
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia vs State & Anr on 13 January, 2009
Author: Sunil Gaur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgement reserved on: January 07, 2009
Judgement delivered on: January 13, 2009
+ (1) Crl.M.C. No. 1227/2007
% Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Petitioner in person.
versus
State & Anr ... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For State
Mr.Viraj R.Dattar for respondent No.2.
(2) Crl.M.C. No. 1228/2007
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Petitioner in person.
versus
State & Anr ... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For State
Mr.Viraj R.Dattar for respondent No.2.
(3) Crl.M.C. No. 1230/2007
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Petitioner in person.
versus
State & Anr ... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For State
Mr.Viraj R.Dattar for respondent No.2.
Crl.M.C. Nos. 1227,1228,1230-1234/2007 Page 1
(4) Crl.M.C. No. 1231/2007
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Petitioner in person.
versus
State & Anr ... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For State
Mr.Viraj R.Dattar for respondent No.2.
(5) Crl.M.C. No. 1233/2007
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Petitioner in person.
versus
State & Anr ... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For State
Mr.Viraj R.Dattar for respondent No.2.
(6) Crl.M.C. No. 1234/2007
Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedia ... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Petitioner in person.
versus
State & Anr ... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For State
Mr.Viraj R.Dattar for respondent No.2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
Crl.M.C. Nos. 1227,1228,1230-1234/2007 Page 2
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. Petitioner was the Vice Chairman of M/s.Kedia Distrillaries
(hereinafter referred to as accused-company) during the period from
October 1997 to March 1998. In Crl.M.C. No. 1227/2007, petitioner is
challenging impugned summoning order of 3rd September, 1998, vide
which he has been summoned as an accused by the trial court with
regard to dishonouring of six cheques of rupees ninety five thousand
each issued towards the rent of the premises taken on rent by
accused-company. In Crl.M.C. No. 1228/2007 and Crl.M.C. No.
1231/2007, petitioner is challenging impugned summoning order of 3 rd
September, 1998, vide which he has been summoned as an accused
by the trial court with regard to dishonouring of six cheques of rupees
fifty five thousand each issued towards the rent of the premises taken
on rent by accused-company. In Crl.M.C.No. 1230/2007, petitioner is
challenging impugned summoning order of 6 th August, 1998, vide
which he has been summoned as an accused by the trial court with
regard to dishonouring of cheques of rupees fifty five thousand each
issued towards the rent of the premises taken on rent by accused-
company. In Crl.M.C. No. 1233/2007, petitioner is challenging
impugned summoning order of 6th August, 1998, vide which he has
been summoned as an accused by the trial court with regard to
dishonouring of cheques of rupees forty seven thousand each issued
towards the rent of the premises taken on rent by accused-company.
In Crl.M.C. No. 1234/2007, petitioner is challenging impugned
summoning order of 6th August, 1998, vide which he has been
summoned as an accused by the trial court with regard to dishonouring
Crl.M.C. Nos. 1227,1228,1230-1234/2007 Page 3
of cheques of rupees thirty seven thousand each issued towards the
rent of the premises taken on rent by accused-company.
2. With the consent of the parties, these petitions have been heard
together and are being disposed of together by this common order.
3. In these petitions, the stand of the petitioner is that at the time of
dishonour of the cheques in question, he had ceased to be the Vice
Chairman of the accused-company. During the course of the
arguments, it was stated that the notice regarding dishonouring of
cheques was issued in April, 1998 and infact, the petitioner had ceased
to be the Vice Chairman of the accused company on 30th April 1996. To
state so, reliance has been placed upon certified copy of Form-32.
4. Contesting Respondent in response to this petition, has filed a
counter by way of affidavit, wherein it is stated that whether the
petitioner was the Vice Chairman of the company at the time of
dishonour of the cheques in question, is a fact which is required to be
proved at trial and is premature for consideration by this Court. It is
also stated that at the time of the execution of the rent agreements i.e.
in March, 1996, cheques in question were handed over and the
petitioner was the Vice Chairman/Director of the accused Company
and so he cannot escape the liability for the dishonouring of the
cheques in question and that even in January 2005, in the profile of the
accused company displayed on the Internet, petitioner is shown as the
Director of the accused company. Thus, it is submitted that these
petitions deserve dismissal.
5. A bare reading of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
reveals that the offence under this Section is made out only when the
cheque is returned back unpaid. Therefore, the date of presentation of
Crl.M.C. Nos. 1227,1228,1230-1234/2007 Page 4
the cheque is the relevant date and material for the determination of
the commission of the offence. Admittedly, the date of dishonouring of
cheques in question is 30th March, 1998. I fail to understand as to why
certified copy of Form-32 indicating that petitioner had ceased to be
Director of the accused company on 30th April 1996 cannot be relied
upon. It is not the case of respondent that aforesaid certified copy is
forged and fabricated one and, therefore, there is no point in putting
petitioner to trial to get this document formally proved.
6. I am of the considered opinion that the profile of the accused
company purportedly displayed on Internet is not at all sufficient to
dislodge documentary evidence i.e. certified copy of Form-32 which
comes to the rescue of the petitioner as he was not the Director of the
accused company on the crucial date i.e. on the date of dishonouring
of cheques in question. Therefore, summoning of the petitioner in
these seven criminal complaints is bad in law and hence cannot be
sustained.
7. Consequently, impugned order qua petitioner Viney Kumar @
Viney Kumar Kedia S/o Shri Kailashpati Kedia is set aside and these six
petitions are accordingly allowed.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
January 13, 2009
dkg
Crl.M.C. Nos. 1227,1228,1230-1234/2007 Page 5
