The liability of individuals under Section 138 and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is contingent upon their roles in the company at the time of the offence, as established by judicial pronouncements.

1. The petitioner had instituted a criminal complaint (CC No. 541/2013) in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 03.04.2013 involving offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondents herein were impleaded in the said criminal complaint as third and fifth prospective accused, this in addition to M/s Cedar Infonet Private Ltd. (accused no.1), Lt. Col. H.S. Bedi (accused no.2) and Ms. Maninder Bedi (accused no.4). The allegations in the case concerned a cheque bearing no. 933743 dated 28.02.2013 for Rs. 52,64,384/- which had been issued under the signatures of Lt. Col. H.S. Bedi (second accused) against the account of M/s Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd. (first accused) which, upon presentation by the petitioner, was dishonoured. It was alleged that a notice of demand was issued to all the five persons, arrayed as accused on 05.03.2013, to which there was no response, nor any payment received and consequently the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been committed.

2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after preliminary inquiry, issued summons, by order dated 04.06.2013, against all the five persons shown in the array of accused, they including the respondents herein.

3. The respondents and Ms. Maninder Bedi (fourth accused) approached the court of Sessions by petition (Crl.Rev. 25/2014) impugning the summoning order. The revisional court, by order dated 13.10.2014, rejected the prayer of the fourth accused but accepted the contention of the respondents that no case was made out for they to be summoned only because they were alleged to be directors of the concerned company (first accused). Thus, by order dated 13.10.2014 of the revisional court, the proceedings in the criminal case against the respondents were closed. It is the aforesaid order which is challenged by the petition at hand invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

4. The petitioner has placed reliance on judgments reported as Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 62; Tamil Nadu News Print & Papers Ltd. vs. Dr. Karunakar & Ors. 2015 SCC online SC 741; Shashi Jindal vs. Govt. of NCT 2015 SCC Online Del 13066; Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. vs. Anu Mehta (2015) 1 SCC 103; Ashesh Devendrabhai Vyas v. The State of Delhi & Anr. 2015 (220) DLT 101; Paresh P. Rajda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 2357 and Rajesh Kumar Gulati vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. & Anr. (2008) SCC Online Delhi 2, to argue that a case has been properly made out for criminal prosecution also of the respondents herein and consequently the view taken by the revisional court is not correct.

5. Per contra, the respondents through counsel, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 70; National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 330; Central Bank of India vs. Asian Global Limited & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 203; N.K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 481 and Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 693 and of the learned single Judge of this Court in Chintan Arvind Kapadia & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. ILR (2013) III Delhi 2135, have submitted that the view taken by the revisional court is correct in the given facts and circumstances and that there is no case made out for the same to be interfered with.

6. The case involves the application of the penal clause contained in Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the liability of the respondents requiring to be examined also in light of the provision contained in Section 141 thereof. Similar questions had arisen before this Court in Jwala Devi Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. Fadi El Jaouni 2018 SCC Online Del 10030. In the context of the penal clause under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court in Jwala Dev