Specific allegations and evidence of a director's incharge and responsible status for the company's business are required to establish liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 1 ) BY this order three petitions Crl. M (M) 787/2001, 789/2001 and Crl. R 415/2002 can conveniently be disposed together as they arise out of the similar order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 25th November, 2000.

( 2 ) SOME of the relevant facts are that respondent shri N. K. Wahi had presented a criminal complaint under section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 in the court of the Metropolitan magistrate, New Delhi. It had been pleaded that M/s western India Industries Ltd. is a limited company. The present petitioners along with certain other persons were directors/persons responsible for carrying out the business of the company and liability of those persons is joint and several. Thereafter it had been pointed that certain cheques had been given which were dishonoured on being presented. After giving the necessary notice etc. the complaint as such was filed.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS had presented applications for dropping the proceedings against them alleging that they were not the directors of the company and further there were no allegations against them that in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act they should not be arrayed as accused or summoned as such.

( 4 ) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed those applications holding that whether petitioners in the above said three petitions were directors at the relevant time of the company or not is to be decided on evidence. It was further held that company is a jurist person and works through the persons responsible for carrying out its activities. If some transaction has been entered into between the company and third persons, all persons managing the affairs of the company should be arrayed as such. with these findings the impugned order as such was passed which prompts the petitioners to file the present petitions invoking Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

( 5 ) IN the first instance it had been urged that petitioners had seized to be director at the time when the alleged cheques had been given and therefore they should not have been summoned as accused persons. The fact as such has been disputed at the bar by the contesting respondent.

( 6 ) INDEED it is matter of evidence to be gone into as to whether petitioners on the relevant date were the directors of the accused company or not. At the initial stage unless there is any other conclusive evidence a finding to that effect cannot be returned. In these circumstances trial court was Justified in passing any such order on this controversy. To the same effect is the decision of this court in the case of A. K. Goenka vs State and Anr. 2001 I AD (Delhi) 387 and also in the case of Anurag Modi vs. M/s. MSTC Ltd. 2002 I AD (Delhi) 445. In that view of the matter the said argument necessarily must fail.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, it was contended that the assertions in the complaint and preliminary evidence does not establish that petitioners were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company. In the absence of any such evidence or assertion in the complaint necessarily it must be held that there were no material before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to summon the petitioners.

( 8 ) CHAPTER XVII has been incorporated under the negotiable Instruments Act with effect from 1. 4. 1989. In certain contingencies referred to under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act on the cheques being dishonoured a new offence as such had been created. But to take care of the offences purported to have been committed provisions of sub-section (1) to section 141 of the Act comes into play. It reads as under;-

"141 Offence 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 co