Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1392 (MAD)

M. S. Kumanan v. Sushil R. Bhatia

2008-04-25

R.REGUPATHI

body2008
Judgment :- The petitioner is A.3 among 4 accused. He is one of the Directors of A.1 Companies. Contending that the petitioner has not issued the cheque and was not in charge of the Company during the relevant period, the present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.460 of 2003. 2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegations are made at paragraph-2 of the complaint fixing the responsibility of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was also in charge of the affairs and Management of the Company during the relevant period. 3. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. In a recent decision reported in 2007(3) CTC 495 (N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd), the Apex Court held as follows: "24....... It is not proper to split hairs in reading the complaint so as to come to a conclusion that the allegations as a whole are not sufficient to show that at the relevant point of time the appellant and the other are not alleged to be persons in charge of the affairs of the Company. Obviously, the complaint refers to the point of time when the two cheques were issued, their presentment, dishonor and failure to pay inspite of notice of dishonor. We have no hesitation in overruling the argument in that behalf by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. 25. We think that, in the circumstances, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint. In fact, an advertence to Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shows that on the other elements of an offence under Section 138 being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the Officers in charge of the affairs of the Company to show that they are not liable to be convicted. Any restriction on their power or existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company. Any restriction on their power or existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the company. Reading the complaint as a whole, we are satisfied that it is a case where the contentions sought to be raised by the appellant can only be dealt with after the conclusion of the trial". 4. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed.