IMPORTANT POINT
Specific averments regarding a director's responsibility for a company's conduct are essential for establishing vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceedings being Complaint Case No. C-825 of 2011 pending before the Learned 4th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended till date) and all orders passed thereunder.

2. None appeared to represent the opposite parties.

3. The petition of the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta:

“(a) The accused nos. 2 to 5 are the Directors and Officers of the accused no. 1/Company, who at the time of offence was committed, were and are in charge of and were responsible to the accused no. 1/Company, for the day to day conduct of the business of the accused no. 1/Company. The said accused nos. 2 to 5 were in charge of management of the day to day affairs of the accused no. 1/Company and are controlling the affairs of the accused no. 1/Company. The accused no. 1/Company is being controlled and managed by the accused nos. 2 to 5.

(b) At the request of the accused persons and in usual course of business the complainant allowed and/or accorded the bill discounting facility from time to time starting from 17.07.2007 and the accused person availed the said facility of bill discounting and to clear the dues of the complainant and in due repayment and/or in discharge of their existing liability in part the accused persons tendered the following A/C payee cheque to the complainant herein:

(c)..........

(d) The cheque mentioned above was presented by the complainant/petitioner to its bankers namely Karur Vysya Bank, Burrabazar Branch, Kolkata for encashment within the validity period of the said cheque. But the said cheque was returned dishonoured/ unencashed by the banker of the accused persons namely State Bank of India, 79C, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026, with remarks “Other Reason.”

(e) The factum of dishonor of the said cheque was duly intimated by the bankers of the complainant on dated 15.09.11 along with cheque return memo dated 14.09.11 with endorsement “Other Reason.”

(f) The total amount of the aforesaid dishonoured cheque was Rs.5,00,000/-

(g) Thereafter the petitioner caused issuance of a legal notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dated 26.09.11 and sent under registered speed post with A/D on 29.09.11, demanding of them to pay the amount of the said dishonoured cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The accused nos. 3 and 5 duly received the said notice on 30.09.11 and the A/D cards returned back to the petitioner. The envelopes and A/D cards of the copies of notice sent to accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 have returned with postal remarks ‘final intimation’ and ‘Refused’ respectively, which is good service. Subsequently the accused persons gave a reply to the notice given by the petitioner through their Ld. Advocate Krishnendu Bhattacharya on dated 12.10.2011 citing frivolous and vague grounds in order to avoid payment of their liabilities to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly gave a reply to the said letter given by accused person’s Ld. Advocate on dated 28.10.2011, which was duly received by the accused persons’ Ld. Advocate.

(h) The petitioner respectively submits that the said cheque was issued by the accused persons in discharge of their liability towards the complainant and the said cheque on being presented for encashment through the bankers of the complainant were returned dishonoured on the ground “Other Reason” which shows that there was no sufficient funds in the bank account of the accused’s wherefrom the accused persons had issued the said cheque.

(i) The petitioner submits that the accused persons due to sheer negligence insptie of recei