S V S RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) BY this group of matters, the petitioner is challenging the issuance of process issued by the Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.

(3.) IT is thereafter submitted that the petitioner, therefore, not being Director at the relevant period, the process which was issued by the Magistrate was liable to be quashed. In support of the said submission, learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Pandurang Camotim Sancoalcar V/s. Suresh Prabhakar Prabhu (2001 Criminal Law Journal 2945). The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no averment in the complaint that the petitioner was incharge or was responsible to the day to day management of the company and even on that ground, the complaint, qua the petitioner, was liable to be quashed. He relied on the Judgments in the case Kusum Bartheskar V/s. State reported in 1998 (4) LJ and K.P.G. Nair V/s. Jindal Menttal Ltd. reported in Judgment Today 2000 (Suppl) SC 509.