JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present proceedings impugn order dated 21.01.2014 whereby the petitioner was summoned in complaint case bearing CC No. 465731/2016 instituted under Section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the NI Act. The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 21.01.2014 by which the petitioner’s application seeking recall of the summoning order was dismissed being not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contention. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Director of the accused company on 20.09.2011 and had resigned on 30.11.2013. He contended that the petitioner being a non-executive Director was never in-charge of the business of the accused company or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. He further contended that in the complaint, no specific allegation or averment has been made against the present petitioner and in the absence of any specific averment, the petitioner cannot be made vicariously responsible for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions in National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet S