Section 138 Case
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 23 May 2010
This query is : Resolved
Actual Story of My Company
1) My Self “A” Founder member of the Public Limited Company, By the Name “ KP Limited” founded in the year 2005, Myself Chairman, Other Two Directors - Resigned
2) From Last one Year Myself alone is the Director, I “A” is the Authority Signatory on the Bank Cheque book
3) Duly signed cheque book was always kept with “B”, to make it easy, to handle day to day activities, as I was looking technical activities & I was always out of station for technical problems & bringing the business for the company.
4) 01/05/2009 – Appointed “B” as a “Chief Executive Officer of the company” handle the Day to Day Activities of the company, Accounting, Commercial Matters etc.
5) 18/05/2009-“B” Issued the purchase order to “C” Proprietary Steel trading company, situated at Mumbai. For supply of SS Sheets, at our factory Address Pune. PO having Forged Signatory of “A”
6) Where “B” & “C” knows each other from last 2 Years, Their previous company relationship. Myself “A” Don’t know “C”, Never seen to “C”
7) Material Supplied by “C” as per the instructions of “B”, Directly at Mumbai but not at the delivery address maintained in the PO which is at Pune.
8) Delivery Challans of “C” are not signed by any authorized persona of The Company KPL Limited or by “B” Or “A”, Challan has signatory of unknown person ”D”, the third party. without knowledge to “A” & without consent of “A”. The Party “D” is Fraud & Hidden today, I Tried to find out him but, he has run away.
9) Myself “A” kept the duly signed cheques, with “B” for the better day to day operations of the company, “B” Cheque of Rs 4,09,000/- which was bounced, in the month of Nov 09.
10) Again “B” Issued another 9 Cheques of Rs, 1.00 Lacks x 8 Nos & 81000 x 1 No, write one request letter to return the previous cheque, of Rs 4,09,000/- & take the signatory of “C” on it.
11) 1st Cheque of Rs 1.00 Lack was returned un paid on 3/12/09, The DD of the same amount was issued by “B” to “C”, from companies account. In the month of Oct also one 1.00 Lack payment By DD & 1.00 Lack cash was issued by “B” to “C” from company account. ( Total 3.00 lack is issued to “C” By “B”.
12) At the time of collection of DD on 9/12/2009, “C” come down to pune, Company office & Forced & Threatened to “B” to issue the Single cheque of Rs 8,05,000/-, & “B” Issued the cheque of Rs 8,05,000/-.
13) The FIR at the local police station was registered for Threatening & Forcefully taking the Cheque of Rs 8.00 Lacks & Non returning of the previously taken 8 cheques.
14) Mean while, I was out of India for @ 1 Month, Notices were send by “C” to Company, Accused No 1-“A”, Accused No 2-“B”. I come to know this fact in the month of Jan 2010, & I received the Summons, for the 1st returned cheque, of Rs 4,09,000/-& others too.
15) “C” has filed complaint in the court Mumbai, for all Cheques, except Rs 8,05,000/- showing that after issue of this cheque of Rs 8,05,000/-, I have issued the cheques of Rs 1.00 x 8 Nos & 80,000x 1 No. to him.
16) After this I Myself study the whole case & observed that “B” & “C” have done the complete story to get the money from the Company “KPL Limited” & From “A” and cheated “A”. Neither the material was supplied to the company, no where the stamp is. No where the work order is prepared to deliver the material Directly to other place. The PO issued also is fraud. I sacked & Terminated “B” from the company. Now he is not working with the company.
17) All total 9 cases are in the Mumbai court, Cross for all is going on. I am getting pressurized to settled the matter, by Both My Advocate & also the complainant.
What Should I Do?
I Or company don’t have money to pay such heavy amounts, today.
I am at very critical finance situation.
Pl Advice
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 23 May 2010
Under Section 141 of the N.I.Act it is clearly stated "Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence." So you agitate all these points during cross-examination, during 313 Cr.P.C and also by giving defence witness. It is a good case for acquittal. Moreover the existence of libility, which is now must has not been proved in this case. so there is nothing to worry. For further help you can contact me at my no. 09143176197.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 24 May 2010
All 138 cases have solution in favour of accused since the complainant make mistates irrespective of other facts.
I publish a weekly newpaper INDIAN FRIEND and in the current week there is an article on 138 cases detailing all the defense opportunities.
Send email ID at indianfriendnashik@gmail.com for a copy.
