(1.) Heard Mr. S.R. Pati learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite party No. 2. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenge has been made by the petitioner Smt. Suja Johnson to an order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 1285 of 2005 taking cognizance against her for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, inter alia, on the ground that while she was the Director of M/s. Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd., she was neither the signatory to the cheque issued to the opposite party-complainant nor in any manner was in charge of day-to-day operation of the company.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the complaint petition where the complainant had impleaded M/s. Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd. as accused No. 1 and also one P.K. Johnson, Managing Director, as accused No. 2 apart from the petitioner Smt. Suja Johnson as accused No. 3. In the said complaint, the facts of the case is stated as follows:
(3.) The petitioner has also appended the deposition of one Soumya Ranjan Mohanty (Witness No. 1) on whose evidence, cognizance was taken and summonses were issued to the accused persons including the petitioner. The essence of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is merely a director of the company and has no active participation in the business of the company and for the purpose of criminal liability, it is essential that a clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable and merely describing the petitioner as Director in the accused No. 1's company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141 of N.I. Act. Referring to Section 141 of the N.I. Act, it is contended that the scope of said Section has been dealt with and settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2005 AIR(SC) 3512 and in particular, paragraph-19 thereof which is extracted hereunder: