SUO MOTU Vs. NELLIKUNNAN ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This court had disposed of W.P.C.No.35281 of 2005 on 07/03/2007. Prosecution against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed by this court, as per the said order. It was so quashed, placing reliance on Ext.P1 produced by the petitioners. The original of Ext.P1 was also brought to the notice of the court. That order was passed on 07/03/2007. Later, this court had occasion to consider the very same document in another application filed by the same petitioners on 09/03/2007 while disposing of W.P.C.No.8514 of 2005. This court, then realised that a crucial fact in Ext.P1 had not been brought to the notice of this court.

(2.) I shall advert to that crucial fact. It was stated in Ext.P1 that the petitioners had retired from the Board of Directors of the Company with effect from 20/11/1995 and consequently they were not members of the Board of Directors on the date of the cheque. But the fact that the said intimation of retirement of the petitioners as Directors was given to the Registrar of Companies only on 15/03/2004 was not brought to my notice by the counsel for either contestant nor was this court alert to perceive that vital fact.

(3.) This court, therefore, felt that it would be improper to permit the petitioners to enjoy any undeserved benefit on the basis of an obvious error committed by the court. Therefore, while disposing of W.P.C.No.8514 of 2005, it was directed that suo motu review petition be registered. It is accordingly that this review petition has come up for hearing.