SASIKUMAR K S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 4th accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1st accused - a limited company, is the drawer of the cheque. The petitioner is not one who has signed the cheque. The petitioner is sought to be roped with the help of Sec.141 of the N.I. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., v. Neeta Bhalla & Another ((2005) 8 SCC 89) urges a contention that the cognizance taken against the petitioner is not justified. He therefore prays that powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings.

(2.) In para-1 of the complaint vital averments having bearing/reflection on the complicity of the petitioner are raised. Para-1 of the complaint reads as follows:

(3.) There is a clear averment that the petitioner was in charge of the affairs of the company and was actively participating in all the day-to-day affairs of the company. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, except this averment, there is no material whatsoever other than the affidavit sworn to by the complainant in support of the allegations raised against the petitioner. But, such a contention appears to be not available to the petitioner in view of the declaration of law in Mymoonath Beevi v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 174). The earlier view taken in Biju Jacob v. Annie Mathew (2004 (2) KLT 634) was overruled by the Division Bench and it was held that it was not necessary to look for anything more at the threshold when there is an averment satisfying the mandate of Sec.141 of the N.I. Act. The said decision is not challenged and I am, in these circumstances, of opinion that there is no merit in the prayer for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner - the 4th accused.