V MUTHUKAMARA RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash the proceedings in CC No.360 of 2001 on the file of the Court of First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, Cuddapah District, initiated against the petitioner and others for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act), by the second respondent on the ground that the cheques issued to it by Velan Textiles Limited (the Company), of which the petitioner and others are Directors, were dishonoured and that even after issuing of notice of demand after dishonour, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques were not paid.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the complaint does not disclose the specific duties of the petitioner in the company and his role in the issuing of the cheques, that were dishonoured, and as there is a broad and bald averments that he as one of Directors of the Company is in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company petitioner cannot be made liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, by placing strong reliance on Neetha Bhalla v. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 225, where it is held that unless a rectial indicating the role played by each of the Directors of a Company they cannot be made liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Act on the basis of an omnibus sentence that 'the Directors are actively in management of the Company'. He relying on Renewable Engineering Systems Limited and others v. State and another, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 701, M/s. Jord Engineers India Limited v. M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited, 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 582, S.S. Industries and Enterprises Limited v. Birla Finance Limited, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 757, and Sunil Kumar Chhaperia v. Dakka Eshwaraiah, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 633, contended that the complaint against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor: