Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 5068 (MAD)

K. R. Sasikumar v. M. Velu

2009-11-24

C.T.SELVAM

body2009
Judgment :- 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C. No.216 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Erode and quash the same. 2. The Petitioner is arrayed as 5th accused. The averments made in the Complaint are that the first accused is a Firm by name M/s. Bhuvana Fabrics of which the accused 2 to 4 are Partners. The 5th Accused is the endorser of the Cheque mentioned in the Complaint. The 2nd Accused has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the 5th accused towards discharging the liability of the first accused Firm and in respect of purchase of yarn from the 5th accused. Such cheque was issued by the 2nd accused in his capacity as Partner of the first accused-Company. The complainant further alleged concert and connivance of the other partners and states that on presentation for payment, the cheque was returned unpaid. The formalities required to be completed to prosecute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been complied with and hence the Complaint. The complainant further alleges that the complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- without receiving the cheque since he know the 5th accused was the son of the 2nd accused and as the first accused-Firm is near to his place of business. It is also alleged that the 5th accused handed over to cheque to the complainant on 5. 2008 after endorsing the same and received a cheque for Rs.5,00,000- in each in lieu of the cheque on the very same day and that the 5th accused paid interest separately for the above said amount to the complainant. 3. The Respondent has been served, but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that irrespective of whatevery may be alleged by the complainant, so far as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be arrayed as an accused therein. Of course, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would in certain cases permit inclusions of the Partners, Directors of persons incharge of business of a Company as accused, but in no event can an endorser of a cheque be included as an accused merely because he has endorsed the cheque. 4. Of course, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would in certain cases permit inclusions of the Partners, Directors of persons incharge of business of a Company as accused, but in no event can an endorser of a cheque be included as an accused merely because he has endorsed the cheque. 4. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In respect of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted, the exception would lie in cases covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Whereunder Partners, Directors and officials of Companies who are incharge of and responsible to the Company/Firm in the conduct of this business could also be liable, the endorser who has played a role of merely endorsing a cheque can in no event, be held liable for the offence under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.