AIR LINK INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 1 to 6 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioners have come to this Court with the prayer that the prosecution initiated against them may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) What are the reasons? Two reasons are urged. First of all it is contended that Section 141 of the Act can have no application in so far as the petitioners are concerned as the requisite averments as insisted by S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005 (4) KLT 209 (SC)) are not there in the complaint. I have looked into this contention closely. The averments in the first paragraph of the complaint make it very clear that the first accused is a company and other accused are the Directors in charge and responsible to the company as also the President and Director and officials of the said company. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the dictum in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra) can have no application to persuade this court to prematurely terminate the proceedings.

(3.) Secondly it is contended that the notice of demand, a copy of which is produced as Annex.C, does not convey the details of the cheque in question. It is true that the number and the name of the drawee bank are not revealed in Annex.C. But that cannot deliver to the accused persons any undeserved advantage. Of course, they are at liberty to raise the contention before the court below that they were misled and did not have an opportunity to respond to the notice of demand appropriately. It may not be inapposite in this context to note that a reply notice had actually been sent and in fact no contention was raised that want of details in the notice of demand deprives the petitioners of an opportunity to effectively respond to the notice.