P S SUBRAMANIAN Vs. MAHALAKSHMI CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2320 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused therein is a company by name M/s. Imapro Formulations (P) Ltd. The complaint was preferred before the lower Court on 09.05.2002. At the time of filing of the complaint, the cause title did not reflect whom the accused company was to be represented by. Subsequently, by the order dated 10.10.2002 in M.P. No. 2930 of 2002 moved on behalf of the complainant, the trial Court permitted the complainant to include name of the Petitioner herein as the representative of the accused company. This was challenged by the Petitioner, but such challenge was negated by the trial Court. The Petitioner had preferred Crl.R.C. No. 70 of 2004 before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Court, which was pleased to dismiss the revision. Thereafter, the Petitioner has moved the present petition to quash the proceedings.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was for the complainant to be vigilant at the time of filing the complaint and there was no power in the lower Court to permit amendment of the complaint. On the day, the amendment was allowed i.e. on 10.10.2002, the complaint would have been barred by limitation. Learned Counsel submitted that the order of the Revisional Court in Crl.R.C. No. 70 of 2004 dismissing the same was passed following the decision of the Apex Court to the effect that no application for discharge or dropping the proceedings can be maintained in a summons case and that the dismissal of the revision on the said ground would not attract application of Section 394(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, which places on embargo in filing the second Revision. Learned Counsel submitted that in any event, the present petition is not the one seeking relief in the nature of revision, but it was one seeking the exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure towards quashing the proceedings. He also submits that no statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been issued on him.

(3.) The learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court would submit that the present petition was not maintainable, since the accused in the case, a body corporate was permitted to be represented by the Petitioner herein and the case was not one where the Petitioner in his personal capacity was arrayed as accused. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd and Anr., 2002 SCC(Cri) 121 wherein the Apex Court had observed as follows: