IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3898 OF 2010 Date: 29.04.2010 Between: B.Sirisha ..... Petitioner AND M/s Response Informatics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, G.Gopa Kumar, Hyderabad and others ....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3898 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/A4 is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) in C.C.No.213 of 2008 on the file of XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Originally the case was filed as C.C.No.58 of 2003 and on transfer, it is registered as C.C.No.974 of 2006 and on further transfer, now it is renumbered as C.C.No.213 of 2008 in the lower Court. The case has been pending in the lower Court for the last seven years. The petitioner has chosen to file this petition after a lapse of seven years. It is alleged that A2 as Managing Director of A1 issued the cheque in question and it was dishonoured. A1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. A4 is shown as Director of the Company. It is specifically alleged in the compliant that A4 is Director of A1 and she is responsible to the Company for conduct of the business as well as the company. Now it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A4 is not a Director of the Company and that she is only wife of the Managing Director A2 and that Articles of Association of the Company do not show A4 as the Director. The question whether A4 is a Director or not is one of fact, which this Court cannot go into and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In case the petitioner is Director of A1 Company, then there are valid averments required under Section 141 of the Act to include A4 as one of the accused in this criminal case. Then it is for A4 to prove as per first proviso to Section 141 of the Act that the offence was committed without her knowledge and that she had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of this offence. This Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., after seven years of institution of the criminal case in the lower Court, cannot go into disputed questions of fact. I see no merits in this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 29th April 2010 Ivd