BINDHU PRASAD Vs. SEBIA K K NOUFA MANZIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 7th accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The first respondent herein is the complainant. The first accused is a Private Limited Company. Accused 2 to 6 are the Directors of the company. The petitioner submits that except that she happens to be wife of the third accused, one Prasad Naveen, she has absolutely no connection with the company. In the notice of demand that was issued it has not even been alleged that the petitioner is a Director of the company, though the notice has been addressed to the petitioner also. In the complaint that is filed, there is an assertion that the petitioner is a Director and that she is also in charge of and manages the affairs of the first accused company.

(2.) The petitioner contends that she has absolutely nothing to do with the company. She is not one of its Directors. She is not the drawer of the cheque. She has not signed the cheque on behalf of the drawer, i.e. the first accused. She relies on a document produced as Annex.C in support of her contention that she is not a Director of the first accused company.

(3.) The assertion that the petitioner is not a Director of the company and that she is in no way connected with the company remains uncontroverted. In the notice of demand there is no allegation, I repeat, that the petitioner is a Director of the company. In the complaint there is the following sweeping statements appearing in paragraph 1: "The first accused is a company and the accused 2 to 7 are its Directors. The accused 2 to 7 are in charge and managing the affairs of the 1st accused company."