TRICHUR COTTON MILLS LTD Vs. DEVARASETTY COTTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeks to quash the proceedings in CC No. 136 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, in which the petitioners herein are sought to be prosecuted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that inasmuch as the offence is said to have been committed by the 1st petitioner-Company, there are no sufficient allegations in the complaint to fasten the criminal liability on the 2nd petitioner (A2) to bring the matter within the purview of Section 141 of the said Act. As there is no specific allegation in the complaint that the 2nd petitioner is incharge of and responsible to the business of the Company, it is argued that in the absence of such an allegation, criminal liability cannot be attributed to the 2nd petitioner for the offence said to have been committed by the Company, accused No.1 herein.

(3.) It is true that there is no specific allegation in the complaint that A2 is incharge of and responsible to the business of the Company and admittedly the cheque itself was issued by accused Nos.3 and 4 and not by A2 (2nd petitioner herein). Whether a person connected with a firm was incharge of and responsible to the affairs of the Company is a question of fact. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that absence of specific allegation that the 2nd petitioner was incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the Company as contemplated under Section 141 is fatal to the maintenance of the complaint and the proceedings, under these circumstances, have to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relies on the Judgment of this Court reported in G.L Modi and Another v. XEDD Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd., 1998 (4) ALD 365. The learned Counsel more particularly relies on the observation in Para 13 of the said judgment, which is extracted below: