A special metropolitan magistrate court, hearing matters pertaining to cheque bouncing cases, in Mumbai on Tuesday acquitted veteran Bollywood star Dilip Kumar from an 18-year-old cheque bouncing case.
Additional metropolitan magistrate B.S. Kharade on Tuesday acquitted Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar and Vimal Kumar Rathi from the case registered under section 138 r/w 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The magistrate convicted S. Seturaman and Gopalkrishna Rathi, directors of M/s Geekay Exim India Ltd, in the case.
The court acquitted Dilip Kumar and Vimal Rathi because both of them were honourary directors in the company and section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act says that if any company is involved in cheque bouncing case then it should be proved that the accused were responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs, like issuing cheques etc.
In the present case the complainant failed to prove that both the acquitted persons were responsible for issuing the cheque worth Rs 57,61,838 which was not honoured and resulted in filing of this case.
Earlier, the case was pending before the Ballard Pier magistrate court, however later, it was transferred to a special court in Girgaon that conducts cheque bouncing cases.
Though initially case was registered against 20 persons holding different posts in the company, the complainant withdrew case against 16 persons and only four persons, including Dilip Kumar, were facing the trial.
According to plaintiff Smita Shroff, she had invested Rs 45,00,000 in Kolkata-based Geekay company in June 1996 and the company had issued a cheque of Rs 57,61,838.
The cheque was of State Bank of Hyderabad but was dishonoured on November 19, 1997 and hence she first sent notice to the company and later filed complaint in December 1997 and a case was registered subsequently.
This case had been pending in court since then and the judgment was finally passed by magistrate B.S. Kharade on Tuesday.
Interestingly, neither the complainant, her lawyer nor the accused and their lawyers were present in the court when the judge dictated and pronounced the judgment.
