IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN : PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: R. KANTHA RAO CRL.P.M.P. NO. 8235 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9076 of 2010 Between: Dr. K.B. Chandramouli, S/o. Sri Mallaiah Gupta. Petitioner/Accused No. 2 (Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 9076 of 2010 on the file of the High Court) AND 1. M/s. Axis Bank Limited, having its Registered Office a t Trissur, III Floor, Ahmedabad, Gujaraj. And Branch Office at Credit Management Centre, Secunderabad, rep. by its Manager Ms. B. Lakshmi Sailaja. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. Respondent/Complainant (Respondents in do) COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana For Sri Peri Prabhakar COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT The Public Prosecutor Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed in Crl.P., the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 597 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the CRL.P. No. 9076 of 2010 on the file of the High Court; The Court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause why this application should not be complied with, made the following order. (The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case.) ORDER: “Heard Sri.Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the allegations made in the complaint in para-7 which are as under; “That the said cheques in question were issued by the Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in their capacity of Chairman and Managing Director respectively of the Accused No.1 company and therefore Accused No.1 represented by A.3 and A.4 are liable to be punished u/s 138 N.I. Act. Further the accused No.2 is now looking after the day to day activities of the company…….” The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court between N.K.Wahi vs. Shekar Singh (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 481 wherein the Supreme Court held that for launching a prosecution under Section 138 N.I. Act against the alleged Directors, there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction and that the allegations should be clear and unambiguous as to how the Directors were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. In view of the allegations made in para-7 of the complaint and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am convinced that a strong case has been made out for grant of stay. Accordingly, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioner/A.2, for a period of four weeks. Issue notice to 1st respondent.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. Ms. B. Lakshmi Sailaja, Manager, M/s. Axis Bank Limited, (having its Registered Office at Trissur, III Floor, Ahmedabad, Gujaraj).Branch Office at Credit Management Centre, Secunderabad. (BY RPAD) 3. One CC to Sri Peri Prabhakar, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 5. One spare copy. Ksv HIGH COURT Ksv Date of drafting: 23-09-2010 RKRJ DATE: 21-09-2010 ORDER CRL.P.M.P. NO. 8235 OF 2010 IN CRL.P. NO. 9076 OF 2010 INTERIM STAY