2018 (11) TMI 1913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respectively, in CC.No.407 of 2013 on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - Juvenile Court, Nampally. The offences alleged are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent. 4. The complaint is filed against the petitioners and others under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners are shown as Directors of A1 company, the Managing Director of which issued the cheque. 5. The argument of the petitioners counsel is two fold: firstly, he contends that the averment made in the complaint does not explain the nature of the duty that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... material produced by the accused can be analysed to see whether the averment in the complaint is true or false. The decision of the Supreme Court in SMS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. NEETA BHALLA 2005 LAWSUIT (SC) 1265 is to the effect that it is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. As, such averment is nevertheless made in the complaint, the said decision need not be considered. 8. But the decision in GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LTD. (supra) would held the petitioners, as the certified copy of Form 32, is filed by the petitioners to prove that their ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in no circumstances, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is also observed that it is fairly settled by then that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the acc....