ASHOK BUBNA Vs. VINAYAGA MARINE PETRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first Respondent. The first Respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused No.5 in the said complaint. Process was issued against the petitioner and other accused persons by the learned Magistrate. A Revision Application was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court for challenging the order issuing process. The Revision Application has been dismissed by the Sessions court. Therefore, the Applicant has invoked powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on plain reading of the averments made in the complaint and in particular paragraph 2 thereof, the requirements of section 141(1) of the said Act are not satisfied. He submitted that the averments made in the complaint against the petitioner were not in conformity with what is held by the Apex Court in case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Others [2005 (8) SCC page 89]. He submitted that a clear case is made out for quashing the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the averments made in the paragraph 2 of the complaint must be read as a whole. He submitted that the averments made in paragraph 2 of the complaint not only show that the petitioner was incharge of and was responsible for the accused No.1-company but he was actually involved in the activities of the company. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujrat [(2004) 7 S.C.C page 15] and submitted that it is not necessary for the complainant to reproduce the language of the section verbatim while drafting the complaint. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of N. Rangachari Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [(2007) 5 S.C.C. 108]. He submitted that the averments made in the complaint are more than sufficient to attract sub section 1 of the section 141 of the said Act.