The liability of directors under section 138 of the NI Act arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.

1. This common judgment shall decide the present petitions which are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the summoning orders dated 01.04.2017 and 23.02.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned orders") passed in criminal complaints titled as Planetcast Media Services Ltd V Beret Media Services bearing CC no. 5229/2017 and CC No. 3047/2019 by the court of Shri Lovleen, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").

2. The respondent no. 1/complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent no. 1") has filed two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act") titled as Planetcast Media Services Ltd V Beret Media Services & Others bearing CC no. 5229/2017 subject matter of CRL.M.C 1745/2019 and CC No. 3047/2017 subject matter of CRL. M.C 1155/2019 respectively on the allegations that the respondent no. 1 is engaged in the business of providing Playout, Satellite bandwidth & Teleport (Up linking) services under the license of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), Government of India. The respondent no. 2, namely, Beret Media Pvt. Ltd./accused no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent no. 2") is stated to be a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner/accused no. 2, respondent no. 3/accused no. 3 and respondent no. 4/accused no. 4 are stated to be directors of the respondents no. 2, and are in charge and responsible for the conduct, management and day-to-day affairs of the respondents no. 2. The respondents no.2 and 3 are jointly, severely liable for acts of the respondent no. 2. The accused no. 5 i.e. Bhola Baba Developers Ltd is stated to be company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a TV channel "India Crime". The accused no. 6, namely, Virender Kumar Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the "accused no. 6"), accused no. 7, namely, Hari Shankar Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the "accused no. 7"), accused no. 8, namely, Jitendra Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the "accused no. 8") are the directors of the accused no. 5. The accused no. 6 to 8 are responsible for day-to-day affairs of the accused no. 5.

2.1. The accused no. 5 through accused no. 6 to 8 approached the respondent no. 1 for availing the Uplinking and Bandwith services for their TV Channel "India Crime" by using respondent no. 1 Teleport and Satellite resources alongwith Teleport/Hub. The accused no. 5 through the accused no. 6 to 8 as per mutually agreed understanding had entered into Uplinking Service Agreement and Space Segment Service Contract dated 17.01.2013 with the respondent no. 1. The accused no. 5 also gave a written confirmation dated 28.10.2015 to the respondent no. 1 wherein it is stated that all the payments towards the invoices raised after 28.10.2018 for Uplinking and Bandwith charges to accused no. 5 shall be done by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 also gave a written confirmation dated 30.10.2015 to the respondent no. 1 by stating that all the payments towards the invoices raised after 28.10.2015 for Uplinking and Bandwith charges to Bhola Baba Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the accused no. 5 shall be borne by the respondent no. 2, after all clearances and given frequency of channel from the date, the respondent no. 2 shall be liable to give payment to Essel Shayam (now known as the respondent no. 1) for Uplinking charges. The respondent no. 1 has fulfilled all its obligations and started providing Uplinking and Bandwith services for the T.V. channel, namely, "India Crime" w.e.f. 23.11.2015 and accordingly, the accused no. 1 to 8 have availed the facilities and services provided by the respondent no. 1 under the agreements.

2.2. The respondent no. 1 in lieu of services rendered by it, issued various invoices from time to