CAPT D KARUNAKAR Vs. A C VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Crl. O. P. No. 1222 of 2007, the fifth accused is the petitioner and in Crl. O. P. No. 4098 of 2007, the petitioners are the fourth, sixth and seventh accused. The petitioners in both the petitions were facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable instruments Act ('ni Act' in short) before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Chennai. The respondent filed the case for the offence under Section 138 of the ni Act implicating 10 accused in this case and the case is pending on the file of the IX metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, chennai in C. C. No. 3022 of 2000.

(2.) MR. N. Sudharshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the fifth accused, the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 1222 of 2007 has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and other accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Ship Captain employed with Murasia Shipping and management Company Limited, Quarry, hongkong. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was also conferred with the honour of Masters (Foreign Going) by Ministry of Transport, government of India and as a Captain of the Ship, he travels all over the world. 2 (a) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner has been implicated in this case by the respondent only on the ground that the petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of the business of the Company. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complaint does not contain any specific allegation regarding the role said to have been played by the petitioner viz. , A-5 in this case, except making a vague and general allegation to the effect that A3 to A9 are involved and in-charge of the conduct of the business of A1 and as such all the accused are jointly and severally liable to be prosecuted and punished under the provisions of Section 138 and 141 of the NI Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being one of the director cannot be implicated in this case on the basis of such a vague, bald and general allegation in respect of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any specific and definite averment in the complaint regarding the manner in which the petitioner is involved in the conduct of the business of the Company, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the offence said to have been committed by A1, the Company. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except such allegation made in Paragraph No. 9 of the complaint, there is absolutely not even a single averment specifying the nature of work of the petitioner herein in respect of the day to day affairs of A1, the Company. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allowing the proceedings to continue in the absence of necessary allegations constituting the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner herein would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of law and as such the proceedings is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioner herein.

(3.) IN support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) (ii) Sabita Ramamurthy v. R. B. S. Channabasavaradhya. (iii) S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. (iv) S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.