S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is accused No. 2 in the case invokes the inherent powers vested in this Court under section 482 Cr. PC to quash the proceedings initiated against him in CC No. 29 of 1998 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, badvel on the ground that he ceased to be the Chairman of the Company by the date of issuance of the dishonoured cheque and he had nothing to do with the management of the day-to-day affairs of the Company.

( 2 ) IN support of the said plea, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in Crl. Petition No. 2300 of 1997 dated 28-11-1997 whereunder the proceedings initiated against him in CC No. 232 of 1997 on the file of the iv Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad were quashed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner who is A2 in the case has only filed this criminal petition. Therefore, I confine myself in this order only in respect of A2.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to para 2 of the complaint, which reads as follows:"the accused approached the complainant to purchase shares of their company. The complainant purchased the same with a condition to pay Rs. 6/- per each share after maturity i. e. , 29-6-1997. After calculating the value of each share at Rs. 6/- per each share with the consult and consent of Accused nos. 1 and 5 to 11, the 3rd and 4th accused on behalf of first accused issued a cheque for Rs. 40,000/- dated 29-6-1997 bearing no. 268540 to be drawn at State Bank of india, Hyderabad. "

( 5 ) IT is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is not averred in the complaint that the petitioner- a2 was consulted and his consent was obtained at the time of issuance of the cheque. The attempt made by the petitioner s counsel is to show that the actual date of issuance of the cheque and dishonouring of the same, are not mentioned in the complaint.

( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that it is not a fit case where the inherent powers of this court can be exercised.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the date of issuance of the cheque is not mentioned in the complaint, but the cheque, the Memos issued by the banks, the office copy of the legal notice, returned postal covers and acknowledgments were filed along with the complaint and shown in the list of documents filed along with the complaint. As can be seen from the record, the cheque was dishonoured on 2-1-1998 and the legal notice was issued on 7-1-1998. Therefore, sofar as the dishonouring of the cheque is concerned, it has no bearing, as the petitioner-A2 is said to have resigned from the post of chairman of the Company much prior to the issuance of the dishonoured cheque i. e. , on 18-9-1996 itself. The cheque was said to have been drawn on 29-6-1997 at State bank of India, Hyderabad for Rs. 40,000/ -. By then the petitioner A2 was ceased to be the Chairman as can be seen from the resignation letter.

( 8 ) SECTION 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reads as follows: dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. , of funds in the account-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both; provided that nothing contained in the section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document