5540/2017 and 5556/2017. The two cheques involved in those two impugned complaints were issued from the very same NRI account. This Court had directed the State Bank of India, Unichira Branch, Edappally, Ernakulam, to furnish a report giving the details as to whether the said account is maintained by the petitioner herein (accused No.2) or whether he is a joint account holder of that account, etc. The Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Unichira Branch, Edappally, Ernakulam has furnished a report dated 23.08.17 to the Registry of this Court, wherein it has been stated that the above said NRI account belongs to one Sri.Abu Thahir.T.M (accused no.1) and that his address as per the bank records is “ Doha, Qatar ” and his local address is shown as “ Edappally, Ernakulam ” and further that the said account is solely in the name of accused No.1 and that there is no joint holder and that the account is not held in the joint name of the petitioner herein. Thus from all these aspects, it is manifestly clear that the dishonoured cheque in question has not been issued from an account maintained by the petitioner (A-2). In other words, the petitioner (A-2) is not the drawer of the above said cheque in question. There are no averments anywhere in the complaint to the effect that accused No.2 could be implicated by virtue of the corporate vicarious liability as envisaged under Sec.141 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, it is only to be held that the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is not attracted as against the petitioner herein (A-2) in the present Anx.A complaint.
