37 1r0 r 4 Criminal Revision No914 of 2002 and Criminal Revision No1915 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No1914 of 2002 1 C Date of Decision2 August 04 2010 0 0 Mrs Surendri Devi Petitioner 0 VERSUS I SPvGn GreengofdPlantation Limited and otherseeRespondents Z Criminal Revision No1915 of 2002 Mrse Surendri Devi Petitioner I VERSUS ctj SPG Greengold Plantation Limited and othersRespondent 7 Z 1 Whether the Reporters of Locai Newspapersmay be alIowed to see the judgment7 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 CORAM IONBLE MR JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Presentl Mr DeepakSahni Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents MOHINDER PAL This judcjmentwill disposeof the aforestated revisions petitions as they are between the same parties and involve KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.08 13: 08 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 38 r 2 Criminal Revision Non1914 of 2002and Criminai Revision No1915 of 2002 of Iaw i e whether criminal proceedingscan a common be allowed to continue togetherwith civil and other proceedings These revisions peti80nshave been preferred by Mrs Surendri Devi whose complaints filed under m Sections138 to 142 of the NegotiabIe Instruments Act for short 0 the Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code Cao I short the Code against the respondentshave been adjourned C5 sine die by the Iearned Judicial MagistrateIst Class Kurukshetra X vide order dated 6200 This order dated 6 2002 in boththe cases has been passed by the trial Magistrate on L account of the fact that Official Liquidator had been appointed X by the Honble HighCourt at Delhi totake over allthe assets ctj of the te SPG GreengoldPlantations Ltd C Chandeok Right Wingl 36 Janpath New Delhi through W2 Z respondents Nos l to 5 Oa Admittedlythe cheques Itl questionhad been issued by the respondentCompanyin favourof the petitioner The said cheques were dishonoured on presentationbefore the concerned BanI The petitionerfiled complaints under Sections 138 to 142 of the Act and Section 420 of the Code The trial Magistrate recorded evidence Ied by the petitioner On the basis of the preliminary evidence the accused respondents were sutnmonedto face trial under Sections 1381142 of the Act The accusedrespondents producedbefore the trial the order dated 931999 passed by the Honble Delhi HighCourt Ill Company Petition No 153 of 1998 whereby the KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.08 13: 08 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 39 l r 3 CriminalRevonNo1914 of 2002 CriminalRevision N01915 202 Officiai had been appointed to take overall the assets to the The accused also a statement before the trial Magistrate that the respondentCompa ny had already been wound up after m r of Official Liquidator 0 On the basis of the order dated 931999 passed by 0 X the Honble Delhi High Court and the statement made by the 0 to the winding up of the accused with Z the trial vide the impugnedorder dated 6A2002 Z the complaintsfiled by the petitioner under Sections 138to 142 of the Act read with Section 420 of the Code sine die and ordered that the compiaints be to the Record 08 Room f hasbeen held in the case of Kn Bhaskaran v It 7 Valdl 2000 11 PLeR 113 that Coun v 2 Sankaran that holder of the cheque received it for discharge Ll presume of any debt or and burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption The acts which are of the offence under Section 138 of the Act ie drawingof the cheque of the chequesto the Bank returning of the cheques by the drawee Bank givingnotice in writing to the drawer ofhe demanding payment ofthe cheque amount and failure ofthe drawer to make payment within fifteen days of the ofthe notice stand prima facie provedon record as per evidence Ied by the petitioner on the basis of the KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.08 13: 08 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 40 1 r 4 l Criminal Revision No914 of 2007 and Criminal Revision1915 of 200 which the accusecrespondentswere summoned to face trial under Sections 1381142 of the Act Under the circumstances appointmentof ah Official to take over all the assets of the respondentCompany 1 didnot absolve the of their criminal Iiability 0 The appointmentof the Official Liquidator did not bar the 0 continuationof the criminal proceedings against the accused I 0 when theyfailed to repay the petitionerthe amounts of the cheques Z For these reasons both these revisions petitionsare allowed and the orders dated 6A2002 passed by the trial adjourning the proceedings irl criminal com plaints X C filed by the petitioner against the Sine die oo whichhave been impugned in both these revision petitions are set 7 Z 8side The trial Magistrate IS directed to proceed with the complaintsfiled by the petitioner irl accordancewith Iaw Since Qs the matter pertai ns to Ja nuary 1999 the tria l Magistrate IS directed to expedite the disposalof the complaints at the earliest It is made clear that the Iearned trial Magistratewill not be influenced by anything said while disposingof these petitions August 2010 vlOHINDER PAL ak JUDGE V 4 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.10.08 13: 08 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document