IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4745 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.208/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. GEORGE ISSAC, S/O.ISSAC, AGED 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-1. 2. SOOSY GEORGE, W/O.ISSAC, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-1. BY ADV. SRISHIJU VARGHEESE SRIPRAMOJ ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. SUMI SHIPPING PRIVATE LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.SREENATH.D, D.B.KHONE BUILDING, SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4745 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 O R D E R Petitioners have come before this court with a prayer that the prosecution launched under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be quashed. 2. The first accused in that prosecution is a partnership firm which is represented by its Managing Partner, the first petitioner herein. It is significant to note that the first petitioner is not the accused and he only represents the firm which is the first accused. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, she is allegedly the person who has signed the cheque on behalf of the 1st accused firm. 3. The petitioner wants the prosecution to be quashed. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient averments to attract culpability under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not available. I find no merit in this contention at all. The 1st accused is a firm which is represented by the 1st petitioner herein who is alleged to be its Managing Partner. The 1st Crl.M.C.No.4745/08 2 petitioner does not face indictment personally. He only represents the firm. He cannot hence be heard to contend that there is non-compliance with Section 141 of the N.I.Act and hence he is not liable. 4. So far as the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused is concerned, it is not disputed that the cheque is purported to be signed by her. It is by now trite, as per the decision in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla [2005(4) KLT 209] that so far as a signatory to the cheque is concerned, it can safely be assumed that such signatory is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs. 5. The claim of both the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner for quashing the proceedings must, in these circumstances, fail. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4745/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4745/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008