JUDGMENT

1. On 30/31.01.2014, certain criminal complaints were filed in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate by the respondent, each seeking prosecution of the parties, including the petitioners herein for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, they including criminal complaint nos.440-443/1/14 from which the present petitions arise. Each of the said criminal complaints were directed against several persons including a company described as M/s. Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. It may be added here that Mr. Rahul Shivam and Mr. Nicholas Fortune were reflected in the array of accused as the Authorized Signatory and Chief Financial Officer respectively, while Mr. Vir Karan Awasthy was described as the Managing Director of the company accused.

2. On the basis of preliminary inquiry in each case, the Metropolitan Magistrate issued process including against the petitioners herein. The petitioners, besides certain others, feeling aggrieved, approached the Court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by separate petitions (CR Nos.97-108/2015), the prime contentions urged on their behalf being that there was no case made out for they being summoned as accused on the basis of allegations that they were the Directors of the company accused, denying that they had any concern or responsibility with the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company.

3. The afore-mentioned revision petitions were decided by the court of Sessions by a common order dated 03.08.2015. While revision petitions of co-accused Naseer Mohd. MF Al Hajri, were allowed, the proceedings against him having been dropped, the revision petitions of the petitioners herein were dismissed.

4. The petitions at hand have been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India to pray for the afore-mentioned order of the Sessions Court in the context of each of the said four criminal cases to be set aside and the proceedings against the petitioners herein also to be dropped. Reliance is placed on the decision of bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in SMS Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89.

5. The petitions have been resisted by the respondent (complainant of the afore mentioned cases) and at the hearing reference was also made to two other rulings of the Supreme Court, they being Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. vs. Anu Mehta and Ors, (2015) 1 SCC 103 and Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 62.

6. There can be no quarrel with the proposition, as advanced by the counsel for the respondents, that the ruling of the bench of three Hon'ble Judges in SMS Pharmaceuticals (supra), continues to hold the field, the decisions in Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. (supra) and Standard Chartered Bank (supra) having accepted this position and the said subsequent rulings being in a slightly different context.

7. It may be mentioned herein that the petitioners before this court had also been facing similar criminal prosecution for offences again under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in altleast eleven other criminal complaints, though they having been filed at the instance of two other complainants. On their revision petition in the context of the said other criminal complaints, the proceedings against them in those cases were dropped by the court of Sessions accepting their above noted plea. The said order of dropping of proceedings by the revisional court were challenged by the complainants of those other eleven cases by a batch of twenty-nine other petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., led by Crl.M.C. No.3257/2016 before this court. The said batch of twenty-nine other similarly placed petitions, giving rise to similar questions of law is being decided by a common judgment of even date.

8. These matters pertain to the penal clause contained i