SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the challenge to impugned order in these petitions is on identical grounds and so, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was not the director of accused-company at the time of supply of goods and issuance of the cheques in question and so, petitioner cannot be prosecuted in these complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(3.) Attention of this Court is drawn to Form No. 32 (Annexure P-5) to show that petitioner had resigned from the accused company on 30th March, 2011 and the transaction in question is of the period from August, 2011 to February, 2012. So, it is submitted that the impugned summoning order deserves to be quashed.