The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific allegations against the accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the inapplicability of subsequent settlements to the complaints.

( 1 ) SINCE common question of law and facts are involved and also as the parties are same all these cases can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE petitioners seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act (herein after referred to as the Act ) on various complaints in CC No. 344/200. CC no. 105/97, CC No. 1059/98, CC No. 1058/ 98, CC No. 749/97, CC No. 354/97, CC no. 977/97 respectively on the file of the iv Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the grounds mentioned, inter alia, in the petitions are two fold. Firstly that there has been no specific allegation against the petitioners 2 and 3, who are obviously not signatories of the cheques issued in favour of the complainant, that, at the time of commission of the offence, they are in charge of conduct of the business of the company and were responsible for the conduct of the administration of the company or that the offence was committed by the company with the consent or connivance or on account of negligence attributable to them. Secondly that after the institution of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners there had been a settlement between the parties, pursuant to which a memorandum of understanding was entered into and therefore that memorandum of understanding, superseded the cheques issued earlier and these prosecutions are not maintainable under the circumstances.

( 3 ) IT is needless to go into the specifics of the case inasmuch as these petitions can be disposed of on the question of law raised. Admittedly the cheques in these cases were issued by the Finance controller of the first accused company who is not before the Court. The first petitioner is the company and the petitioners 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Director respectively. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused have issued the cheques with the intention of cheating the complainant knowing fully well that they do not have sufficient amounts in their account with the bank to make payment for the said cheques. Evidently no specific averment to the effect that petitioners 2 and 3 were in charge of tile company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business has been made in the complaint. Equally no allegation that the petitioner-company committed the offence with the consent or connivance of the petitioners 2 and 3 or on account of the negligence attributable to them has been made. The question that is germane for consideration at this stage is whether, in the absence of such averments in the complaints, the complaints as against the petitioners 2 and 3, who are accused 2 and 3 in the cases, are sustainable or not,

( 4 ) MUCH law has been developed on the. point. The learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance- upon a judgment of this Court in Secunderabad health Care v, Secunderabad Hospitals, 1998 (2) ALD (Crl.) 206, wherein it has been held by this Court as follows:"the requirement in law is that there must be clear, unambiguous and specific allegations against the persons who are impleaded as accused that they were in charge of and responsible to the company in the conduct of its business at the material time when the offence was committed by the company. It cannot be left to the wild imagination of the complainant. There must be specific accusation against each of the persons impleaded that such person was in- charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed by the company",

( 5 ) IT is appropriate to have a fresh look at Section 141 of the Act which is germane in the context for consideration. Section 141 reads as under: "offences by companies : (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company,