P RAKESH Vs. SLO INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 192 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Court IV, George Town, Chennai. Such is an action in prosecution of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in his capacity as the Director of Meghana Metallurgy Private Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Raman and 2 Others v. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., 2006 2 LW(Cri) 775learned counsel submitted that in such decision, it has been informed that "person" includes not only the Company but also other persons who are in charge of and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and as such, individual notice to the Directors would be necessary. He submits that in the instant case, notice was issued to the first accused Company and only a copy thereof was marked to the petitioner. There has been no demand for payment by the petitioner. The second contention of learned counsel is that the complaint does not contain the necessary averment of the petitioner being in charge of and responsible to the first accused Company in the conduct of its affairs.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent/complainant would seek to inform that in the proof affidavit filed by the respondent the position of the petitioner being in charge of and responsible for the company stands stated. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Private Limited and Another, 2013 AIR(SC) 3210to submit that where the statute has made specific provision towards attaching criminal liability for an act of another, the same would attach also to officers of the Company such as the petitioner, a Director thereof.

(3.) This Court has considered the rival submissions.