IMPORTANT POINT
For an offence of dishonour of cheque by Company where petitioner was the Director in Company and complaint pleaded that he/she was the authorised person of Company in absence of any material that his I her case fell, into an exception provided under proviso to Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, proceedings were not liable to be quashed against such a person.

A.L. Dave. J. - Rule. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Maulin Rawal, learned APP and Mr. S.P. Dave, learned APP for respondent No. 2 waive service of (Para 4) rule. This group of petitions arises out of order that came to be passed by the learned JMFC. Wankaner in respect of the application given by the present petitioner to quash the proceedings and discharge the petitioner who is one of the accused persons in the respective complaints, which came to be filed by respondent No. 1 herein viz., Bharat Ginning and Oil Mill Factory and Jalaram Industries respective petitions, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said application was rejected and hence the petition.

2. The quashing of complaint is sought in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the original accused No. 5 the present petitioner on the ground that she is only a Director of the accused Company and not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Company and she cannot be considered as "person in charge of or responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of the Company as contemplated under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that she is aged and ailing and therefore also she deserves to be exonerated by quashing the complaint against her.

3. Mr. H.J. Shah learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that contentions raised in petition. According to him the learned Magistrate has not considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The Resolution dated 24th April, 1987 which was produced before, the Magistrate has also not been considered by him. There seems no participation by the petitioner. There is no specific allegation about petitioner's participation in business1. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in day-to-day affairs of the Company and is a person in charge.

4. Mr. Shah has pressed in service following decisions:

(1) N. Doraiswamy and Another etc. v. M/s. Archana Enterprise and etc.

(2) Sharda Agarwal (Smt.) and Others v. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Another, Allahabad High Court, rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 46561 91, dated 27-11-1991.

(3) Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra v. M/s. N.K. Metals, 1999 (1) Crimes 181, Delhi High Court.

5. He submitted that these decisions indicate that only a person who is responsible to the Company for day-today affairs of the business of the Company could be held responsible for the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as provided under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed this set of petitions. He says that the conduct of the petitioner is required to be seen. Earlier the petitioner had preferred petition before this Court which came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, a discharge application was preferred before the learned Magistrate and because that came to be rejected, the petitioner is before this Court. Mr. Shah has raised an objection that because earlier petition was withdrawn, this petition would not be tenable. Another contention raised by Mr. Mehul Shah is that the resolution that was relied upon by the other side was subsequent of lodging the complaint. The resolution relied upon here is only in relation to the operation of Bank account and does not speak of anything as to administration and management of the Company as to who is responsible for the management and, therefore, this cannot help the petitioner for quashing of the complaint. Mr. Mehul Shah then further submitted that it is a question of evidence as to who is responsible as contemplated in the proviso under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has also taken this Court through the complaint particularly para 2 wherein it has been categorically alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the authorised persons of the mill. What could this