Crl. Rev. No.2820 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2820 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.10.2010 M/s Shiv Raj Wires Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus M/s Punjab Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Crl. Rev. No.2826 of 2010 M/s Shiv Raj Wires Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus M/s Punjab Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Crl. Rev. No.2857 of 2010 M/s Shiv Raj Wires Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus M/s Punjab Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Rev. No.2820 of 2010, Crl. Rev. No.2826 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No.2857 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Rev. No.2820 of 2010. This is a revision against the order dated 28.07.2010 passed Crl. Rev. No.2820 of 2010 2 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which, an application for sending the files of the criminal appeal along with original complaint to the official liquidator appointed by the High Court, was dismissed. While challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court vide order dated 07.08.2003 had directed the official liquidator to take into custody “all properties and effects.” Reliance was placed on scheme of Sections 446, 456 and 457 of the Companies Act to state that the Company could not proceed with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is a revision petition. The Court has limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the petitioner already stands convicted vide order dated 13.09.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in criminal complaint filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was not challenged on merits. Instead, accused moved an application for sending the file of criminal appeal along with original complaint to the Official Liquidator. The cheques bounced on 03.05.1998. The Official Liquidator was appointed much later i.e. on 07.08.2003. It is a well settled proposition of law that the proceedings initiated against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are on account of purely a personal action by the creditors/complainant against the person who has issued the cheque. Thus, it would not bar the criminal proceedings against the employee of the Company for cheating or other offences. As per the judgment of this Court rendered in the case titled as Anil Hada vs.Indian Acrylics Ltd. reported as 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 0681. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has overriding effect over Section 446 of the Companies Act. In fact, in the present case as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, it was the complainant Company that went into liquidation and not the Company of the accused. Crl. Rev. No.2820 of 2010 3 Accordingly, the application moved by the petitioner is without any merit and was rightly dismissed. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.10.2010 JUDGE gurpreet