The duty of the complainant to make specific averments to establish vicarious liability and the need for a liberal construction of the complaint to determine the sufficiency of the allegations.

JUDGMENT

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the proceedings being complaint case no. C/36041/2010 under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta including the orders passed therein.

2. The allegations made in the petition of complaint filed at the instance of Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant company') against IDEB Projects (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'accused company') and its responsible persons were to the effect, that in discharge of legally enforceable debts and liability arising out of supply of cut and bend reinforcement bar by the complainant company, the accused company issued two cheques of Rs.50,00,000/- each aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- . The said cheques bearing nos. 014046 and 014047 both dated 31.03.2010 were drawn on HDFC Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi. The said two cheques were signed by the accused no.2 (Harkirat Singh Bedi) as a Director and authorised person of the accused company and handed over to the complainant company at its office. The said two cheques were presented by the complainant company with its banker HDFC Bank, Central Plaza, 2/6 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 within its validity period for encashment and for collection of the proceeds. The said cheques were dishonoured and returned unpaid with remarks 'Insufficient fund' vide return memo dated 27.09.2010. The complainant received the said information of dishonoured cheque from HDFC Bank, Central Plaza, 2/6 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 on 27.09.2010. The complainant company thereafter send notice through speed post with A/D on 25.10.2010 demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques within 15 days of receipt of the demand notice. The A/D card did not return, however, from the official Website of India Post it was found that the said demand notice was duly served upon the accused no.1 to 3 at its office address on 28.10.2010. The notice was sent to the correct address and therefore it is presumed that the same was duly served to the accused persons in the eye of law. In spite of receiving the demandnotice within 15 days the accused persons did not pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque or any part thereof. It was alleged that the accused persons as such has made themselves liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The main emphasis in this revisional application filed in respect of the accused no.3/petitioner as contended by learned Advocate appearing on his behalf is that the allegations made in the petition of complaint even if accepted to be true do not make out any offence so far as the present petitioner namely, Avneet Bedi is concerned. To that effect the allegations relating to Section 141 of the N.I. Act as appearing in the relevant paragraph(s) of the petition of complaint, are set out as follows:

'2. That the accused in discharge of their legally enforceable debts and all liabilities arising out of supply of cut and bend reinforcement bar by the complainant company the accused No.1 company issued two cheques of Rs.50,00,000/- each aggregating to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in total to the complainant company bearing No.014046 and 014047 both dated 31.03.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi. The said two cheques were signed by the accused no.2 as the director and authorised person of the accused no.1 company and handed over to the complainant company at its office as mentioned above.

6. That the accused persons after receiving the said demand notice and being the responsible Directors/Officers of the said offending accused company and incharge of the day to day business and affairs of the accused company and liable for discharge of such liability of the accused no.1 company are also liable to be prosecuted and p