9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affairs of the company alone is not sufficient in the absence of specific averment with regard to the position and duties of the petitioner/2nd Accused in the company and his role in regard to the issuance of cheque. Petition allowed. - Crl.O.P No.26353 of 2010, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2018 - M. V. Muralidaran, J. For the Petitioner : M/s.A.B.Fathima Sulthana For the Respondents : Mr.R.Baskar (for R1) JUDGMENT It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as 2nd accused. According to the complainant/1st resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany except signing the cheque as authorized signatory. In fact the petitioner resigned from the 1st accused company on 30.12.2004 itself and his resignation was also accepted and he was relived from the office on 30.12.2004 itself. The disputed cheque was issued to the 1st respondent herein only after the resignation of the petitioner and therefore he cannot be fastened with criminal liability for the issuance of alleged cheques. Further at the time of issuance of cheque the petitioner was not in-charge of and responsible for the conduct and affairs of the 1st accused company. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner is not maintainable and it would not constitute any offence an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.] 8.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the above said provisio clause if a person is nominated as a director of a company by virtue of his holding any office, he shall not be liable under this chapter. In the present case the petitioner was working as employee of the 1st accused company and he was authorized to sign in the cheques of the company. Therefore the above said proviso would come into play i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion on either side and this Court is of the considered opinion that this quash petition is liable to be allowed on the ground that the respondent/complainant has not made out a case so as to attract Section 141(ii) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The present case would not fall under Section 141 (ii) of the Act, since there is no designation is mentioned in the complaint for the petitioner/2nd accused. In the complaint it is stated that the petitioner herein is an Authorized signatory of M/s. Chaya Knitting Ltd., Company. Therefore, Section 141 (ii) is not come into play and therefore the above judgment relied on by the respondent/complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In the said judgment it is also held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
