IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3907 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.2810/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SANDEEP.T., 33/5357, KARUVANCHERY THAZHAM, CHOVAYUR P.O., CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.E.COM COMPU SHOP. COM LTD., CHOVAYUR P.O., CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. GEORGE THOMAS, M/S.ALDOUS GLARE TRADE AND EXPORTS, 28/215, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3907 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the second accused in C.C.No.2810/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- IV, Kochi, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A complaint, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that petitioner, as per the complaint, is only an authorised signatory to the dishonoured cheque and therefore, cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that complaint does not show that it was filed under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is stated that petitioner is the authorised signatory of the account maintained by the company and the cheque was issued by the petitioner on behalf of the company and therefore, petitioner cannot CRMC 3907/10 2 be prosecuted. 4. Annexure-A complaint shows that first accused is the company represented by its Managing Director, who is none other than the petitioner herein. Petitioner is the second accused and he is implicated as the Managing Director of the Company. Paragraph 3 of the complaint shows that petitioner, who was earlier shown as the Managing Director, signed in the dishonoured cheque as the authorised signatory of the company and there is a further allegation that the cheque was issued by the petitioner on behalf of the company and petitioner, along with other Directors, is in charge and responsible for the affairs of the company and therefore, he is liable. In such circumstances, it is futile for the petitioner to contend that for the omission to show Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the complaint, petitioner cannot be prosecuted. Petition is dismissed. 23rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv