IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2007 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 746 of 2007() ------------------------ ST.222/1999 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED. -------------------- R.PRABHAKARAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.SALEM TAXTILES LTD.,LRN BUILDING, IIND FLOOR, SARADA COLLEGE ROAD, SALEM, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT. ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE VARDHANI PLANTATIONS P.LTD., PLANTATION HOUSE, PATTOM SIVARAMAKRISHNA AIYAR ROAD, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTANT, SHRI.GIRI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.746 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2007 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. This is the second time that he has come before this Court with the same prayer - to quash the proceedings initiated against him invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The earlier attempt failed with Annexure-VI order passed by another Bench of this Court. It was clearly held that there are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner has come again to this Court with the identical prayer. He prays that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked now to quash the proceedings. 3. What is the reason ? The short contention urged is that notice of demand was not addressed to the drawer of the cheque, but was addressed only to the petitioner who had signed as the Managing Director of the drawer on whose account the cheque was issued. The cheque was issued in the name of the company and in as much as the notice has not been issued to the company, the prosecution is not sustainable, it is urged. Crl.M.C.No.746 of 2007 2 4. I do not intend to make any observation which would encumber the records. Suffice it to say that in the light of the earlier order passed in Annexure-VI, ie. Crl.M.C.No.3056 of 2004 and in the nature of the contentions raised, I am not at all persuaded to agree that any reasons exist justifying the premature termination of the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and necessary contentions before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-