( 1 ) HEARD. In this case, only one short question arises for consideration: "whether the petitioner, Sh. K. K. Chug, simply being Director of M/s. K. K. Overseas (Pvt.) Ltd. could be prosecuted?"

( 2 ) THE allegations made in para-2 of the complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the act for short) read as under:

"2. That the accused persons were in need of money in the month of July, 1995 and requested the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 2 Lacs for a period of three months and accordingly a cheque drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Darya Ganj, Delhi for Rs. 2 lacs was issued by the complainant which was duly received and encashed by the accused persons. "

( 3 ) THE entire complaint does not indicate anywhere that the petitioner being Director at the time of commission of offence was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of. the company. It is also not the case of the complainant that the petitioner has signed the loan documents. It is again not the case of the complainant that he has signed the cheques. In such circumstances, it is evident that since requirements of Sect