D PHILOMINA Vs. P VELUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by one Mrs.Philomina, one of the directors of M/S.Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Bhavani Chithodu NH Road, Chithodu, Erode-2 against the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sankari in Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2003 in C.C.No.329 of 2002 of the said court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: One Velusamy filed a complaint against M/S.Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P)Ltd and 11 others. A2 in the case is the Managing Director of the said Company. According to the complainant, the company purchased cotton from the complainant to the value of Rs.2,40,275/- on 12.9.2000 and two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and another cheque for a sum of Rs.1,20,275/- drawn in favour of the complainant on the Syndicate Bank, Shevapet, Salem-2 were issued by the accused. When the said two cheques were presented for collection from the complainant's Indian Bank, Konganapuram Branch on 15.10.2002 both the cheques were returned on 21.10.2002 as unpaid with a memo containing an endorsement "Account Closed". The first accused has issued the cheques knowing the insufficiency of funds in the bank account and consequently purposely the account was closed. The account was closed without any intimation to the complaint. The complainant sent a registered notice dated 28.10.2002 through his advocate to all the accused for the payment of the said amount. Accused Nos.2,3,6,7,8,10 and 11 received the notice on 29.10.2002, accused Nos.1&4 on 31.10.2002 and the 7th accused evaded to receive the notice. In their reply notice issued through their counsel, the accused admitted the entire facts and their liability and sought time for payment whereas A3 and A12 sent a reply notice through their advocate containing false allegations. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint against A1 to A12 under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The revision petitioner is one of the directors of A1 company. She filed a petition under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that the cheques were issued in the name of "M/s.P.Velusamy" and not in the personal name of a person called"P.Velusamy". According to them, "M/S.P.Velusamy" may be a company or a firm and it is not known to the petitioner whether the said "M/S.P.Velusamy" is a public or private limited company or a partnership or proprietorship firm etc., The petitioner further contended that she is not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, that merely because she is a director, she was not in charge of the overall control of the day to day affairs of the company and she has been unnecessarily impleaded in the complaint and she should be discharged from the above case as per section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also further contended that the complaint has been instituted with the active connivance of the 2nd accused who was the Managing Director. She also contended that she absolutely had no knowledge about the closer of the account and the reply notice dated 6.11.2002. According to her there is no allegation against the petitioner that when the alleged offence was committed , the petitioner was in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.