These petitions arise out of the two different orders passed in Criminal Case No.290/SS/2008 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court at Bandra and, therefore, they may be disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith in both the petitions. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. To state in brief, the complainant - Rajesh M. Pamnani filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through his father Menghraj Pamnani against seven accused persons. Accused No.1 Today's Writing Products Ltd. is a company. Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are its directors and accused No.4 - Devrajan Raman is its Chief Financial Officer. As per the complaint, for the financial and managerial consultation provided by the complainant to the accused No.1, the accused No.2 had issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs on 5.9.2007 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Andheri Branch, Mumbai, in favour of the complainant. The cheque was presented for encashment, but was dishonoured with the remark “payment stopped by the drawer”. Inspite of service of the statutory notice to make payment, the accused persons failed to make payment. Therefore, the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 read with Sec.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court issued process against all the accused persons.

4. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 challenged the issuance of process by filing Criminal Revision Application No.621/2008. The Revision was partly allowed by order dated 20.7.2009 and the process issued against accused Nos.3 and 4 was set aside, while the issuance of process against accused No.2 was maintained. That order is challenged by the complainant in W.P. No.3050/2009.

5. The accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 filed Revision Application No.1031/2010 challenging the issuance of process against them. However, that application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge as per the order dated 14.12.2010. That order is challenged by the original accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 in W.P. No.692/2011.

6. It appears that the earlier order allowing the revision application to the extent of accused Nos.3 and 4 was based on certain Judgments of the Supreme Court, including S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., 2005(8) SCC 89 : [2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 1118]. The second order rejecting the revision application filed by the accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 was based on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in P. S. Srinivasan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2010 ALLMR (Cri) 459, in which reliance was placed on certain observations in K. K. Ahuja Vs. V. K. Vora, 2009(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 749 (S.C.) : [2009 ALL SCR 1524].

7. It appears that the observations in K. K. Ahuja also came for consideration before the Supreme Court in National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr., 2010 ALLMR (Cri) 921 (S.C.) wherein besides K.K.Ahuja, all other relevant previous authorities were also considered by the Supreme Court. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. [2005(5) ALLMR (S.C.) 1118] (supra), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the following three questions:-

“(a) Whether for purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a whole fulfill the requirements of the said section and it is not necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company.

(b) Whether a director of a company would be deemed to be in-charge of, and responsible to, the company for conduct of the business of the company and, therefore, deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he proves to the contrary.

(c) Even if it is held that specific averments are necessary whether in the absence of such averments the signatory of the cheque and or the managing directors or joint managing director who admittedly would be in-charge of the company and