High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
AIR LINK INDIA LTD., 7 KYD STREET v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 509 of 2006  RD-KL 224 (4 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl MC No. 509 of 2006()
1. AIR LINK INDIA LTD., 7 KYD STREET,
2. VINOD NAIR, DEPUTY REGIONAL MANAGER
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. MR. JAMES FERNANDEZ, T.C.34/824,
3. MR. SURESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, JCrl.M.C.No.509 of 2006
Dated this the 4th day of January 2007
O R D E RThe petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first accused is a company and the second accused, its Deputy Regional Manager, is the person who has allegedly signed in the cheque on behalf of the first accused. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners herein as also the third accused, the Manager of the Thiruvananthapuram unit of the first accused company.
2. The petitioners have come to this court with a prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that blank signed cheques were misutilised by the third accused and were handed over to different persons including the complainant. In these circumstances, petitioners 1 and 2 cannot be saddled with any liability on those cheques. Crl.M.C.No.509/06 2
4. This essentially is a contention which the petitioners will have to raise before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial. At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C invoking the inherent jurisdiction, such disputed questions of fact cannot obviously be resolved. The petitioners will, of course, be entitled to contend that the blank signed cheques in the account, for which the first accused is the drawer/account holder and the second accused is the signatory, have been misutilised by the third respondent. The learned Magistrate will certainly have to consider such contention on merits.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have now come to realise that the cheque in question is not signed by the second accused also. That again is a contention which the petitioners have the liberty to raise before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage. On the basis of that contention, proceedings cannot obviously be quashed.
6. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed with the above observation.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr Crl.M.C.No.509/06 3 Crl.M.C.No.509/06 4
ORDER21ST DAY OF JULY 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.