B.Sridhar Vs. Johny.K.a

B.Sridhar vs Johny.K.a

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 03, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1154490

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1154490
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Hariprasad
Decided On: Jul 03, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B.Sridhar

Respondent

Johny.K.a

Excerpt

.....along with other accused. as per annexure-g order, this court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner finding that the same was not legally maintainable.5. it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the complaint he is arrayed as 5th accused on the allegation that he was the director of a company, which issued the dishonoured cheque. but, as per annexure-f crl.mc no.2340/2013 2 resignation letter, the petitioner had resigned from the company on 28.06.2006. the disputed cheques were issued by the company only on 24.04.2007 and 04.05.2007. it is, therefore, submitted that on these dates the petitioner had no connection with the company. as per annexure-g order this court elaborately considered the scope of section 141 of the act. it is clear that in order to attract the liability for a person on account of the offence committed by a company, it should be established that at the time of commission of the offence, he was in charge of and was in control of the affairs of the company. in this case, it is clear that the petitioner had resigned from the company long before issuance of the cheque. therefore, i find merit in the contention of the petitioner and the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. in the result, the petition is allowed. annexure-a complaint in s.t.no.3667 of 2008 insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. all pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. a. hariprasad, judge. cks

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY,THE3D DAY OF JULY2014/12TH ASHADHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2340 of 2013 () --------------------------- *(ST6672008) of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATECOURT-III,THRISSUR * ST NO.667/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -III, THRISSUR IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS ST NO.3667/2008 AS PER ORDER

DATED16H AUGUST, 2013 IN CRL.MA NO.6095/2013 IN CRL.MC NO.2340/2013. PETITIONER(S)/5TH ACCUSED IN S.T.NO.3667/08 OF JFCM - III, THRISSUR: --------------------------------- B.SRIDHAR S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ' KOUNDANYA HOUSE ', POOTHOLE THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT IN S.T.NO.3954/08 OF JFCM - III, THRISSUR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNY.K.A S/O.K.L.ANTONY,KAIPILLYPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLAYI P.O. NELLAYI VILLAGE, KOTTEKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MS.BINDU GOPINATH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0307-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2340 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-A: CERTIFIED COPY OF S.T.NO.3667/08 JFCM - III, THRISSUR ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DT.13.11.07 ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DT.16.11.07 ANNEXURE-D: TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DT.29.11.07 ANNEXURE-E: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT ANNEXURE-F: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.28.6.06 OF ROC, T.N ANNEXURE-G: TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER

DT.7.8.09 IN BATCH CRL.M.CS RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2340 of 2013 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2014. ORDER

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

2. Petitioner is the 5th accused in S.T.No.3667 of 2008 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. The case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the accused persons alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, "the Act").

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the party respondent was served, there was no representation. I have carefully perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were series of cases identical to this one, wherein petitioner was implicated as 5th accused along with other accused. As per Annexure-G order, this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner finding that the same was not legally maintainable.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the complaint he is arrayed as 5th accused on the allegation that he was the Director of a company, which issued the dishonoured cheque. But, as per Annexure-F Crl.MC No.2340/2013 2 resignation letter, the petitioner had resigned from the company on 28.06.2006. The disputed cheques were issued by the company only on 24.04.2007 and 04.05.2007. It is, therefore, submitted that on these dates the petitioner had no connection with the company. As per Annexure-G order this Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 141 of the Act. It is clear that in order to attract the liability for a person on account of the offence committed by a company, it should be established that at the time of commission of the offence, he was in charge of and was in control of the affairs of the company. In this case, it is clear that the petitioner had resigned from the company long before issuance of the cheque. Therefore, I find merit in the contention of the petitioner and the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A complaint in S.T.No.3667 of 2008 insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties B.Sridhar vs Johny.K.a Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Hariprasad