( 1 ) NOTICE before admission has been ordered and the respondent No. 2 made their appearance through their counsel. The Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Kodandaram and the learned Senior counsel Sri. E. Manohar for respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the proceedings in C. C. No. 236 of 2000 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in so far as the petitioner is concerned, who appears as accused No. 5 facing a charge for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kodandaram contends that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No. 5 to implicate him in the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated that accused No. 5 has nothing to do with the affairs of the company.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri E. Manohar contends that according to the complainant there is a specific allegation that the cheque issued on behalf of accused No. 1 company had been dishonoured and accused No. 5 is the Director of the Company and accused Nos. 2 to 5 were in-charge of and responsible to for the conduct of affairs of accused No. 1 company. A reference is made in this regard to para l in the complaint. There is a specific allegation that accused No. 5 is not only a Director of the Company who is alleged to have been in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of accused No. 1 company. The contention is that the requirements contemplated in Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for fastening criminal liability on the petitioner for the offence committed by accused No. 1 company have been satisfied.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such an allegation is not sufficient unless there is a material to show that the petitioner-accused No. 5 was really in-charge of and responsible to the company for its business affairs. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128 : 1998 Cri LJ 1 in support of his contention.

( 7 ) IN that case, the accused-appellant, namely, M/s. Pepsi Foods Limited had merely lent their brand name to residency Foods and Beverages, Sataria, Janunpur for bottling the beverage lehar Pepsi . The complaint did not show as to what is the role of the appellant company pepsi Foods in the manufacture of the beverage which was said to be adulterated nor was there any averment in the complainant that the appellant held license for manufacturing the alleged bottle and its contents. Thus, there was no allegation or material that the appellant had anything to do with the manufacture of the bottle or beverage or that the appellant held the license for manufacture of such beverage. It is in the background of these facts that the Court held that in respect of adulteration of a drink detected in a remote corner, 100 kilo meters away from the office of the appellant, it cannot be fastened with criminal liability and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate against the said accused company was quashed.

( 8 ) IN that case, the Supreme Court as stated in para 28 of the judgment observed that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.

( 9 ) THE contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that the judgment of the Supreme Court has to be appreciated in the background of the specific facts in that case. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel that the facts of the case before the Supreme Court as gleaned from the reported judgment show that the accused-company seeking quashing of the proceedings was not sho