WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 23F, AIA CENTRAL, 1 CONNAUGHT ROAD CENTRAL, HONG KONG, REP, BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY JAMES HILLYER BOICE Vs. H.V. GOWTHAMA S/O MRS. H.V. CHALAM, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT M/S GOWTHAMA AND CO. 23/57, 41ST CROSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTERS are listed for admission. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 5 in C.C.Nos.32102/2009, 32101/2009, 32104/2009, 32108/2009, 32107/2009, 32102/2009, 32103/2009, 32105/2009, 32099/2009, 32106/2009, 32097/2009 pending trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner M/s. Wells Fargo Bank is a company registered under the Companies Act and it can not be a Director of first accused M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., The averments of complaint, accepted at their face value do not bring petitioner within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge should not have issued process to petitioner.

(3.) I am not pursuaded to accept submissions of learned Counsel for respondents. Even if it is assumed that petitioner is a shareholder of a company registered by the Companies Act, petitioner can neither be a nominee Director nor a Director of M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., The petitioner is a company registered in Hongkong. The petitioner cannot be a Director or nominee Director M/s.Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd., which is the drawer of the cheque in question. Therefore, complaint averments accepted at their face value do not bring petitioner within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to fasten vicarious liability on petitioner. The learned trial Judge, without appreciating these facts has issued process to petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is accepted. The impugned proceedings as they relate to petitioner herein (accused No. 5 before the trial Court) are quashed.