Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.—Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.2203 (C) of 2012, whereby finding prima facie case against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the learned Magistrate has directed to issue summons against all the accused persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioners.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the accused no.6 – Mr. Vikash Patni who had issued cheque, in question, in favour of the complainant. The said accused happens to be the Managing Director of the Company, as evident from Annexure-3 annexed with this application of the petitioners. So the said accused is solely accountable for the consequences of bouncing of the cheque and not the petitioners who were simply Directors of the Company and are not vicariously liable for the act of the said accused.

4. On the other hand, it has been su