Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases accused were liable for the offences committed by company.

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—In all these special leave petitions common question of law and facts arise and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Leave granted.

3. In all these cases we are concerned with accused A.K. Singhania and Vikram Prakash. Several complaints were filed by Gujarat State Fertilizer Company against Esslon Synthetics Ltd., its Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors including aforesaid A.K. Singhania and Vikram Prakash alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

4. In Complaint Case No. 331 of 1996 the allegations which are relevant for the decision of these appeals read as follows:

“3. The Accused No. 14 is a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and are doing business of chemicals, synthetics etc. The Accused No. 1 is Managing Director of accused Company No. 14 and Accused No. 2 is Deputy Managing Director, Accused No. 3 is Chairman, Accused No. 4 is Whole Time Director, Accused No. 5 is Finance Director, Accused No. 6 to 12 are the Directors and the Accused No. 13 was Senior Manager (Finance) of the accused Company No. 14 Esslon Synthetics Ltd.

4. All the business and financial affairs of the accused Company No. 14 are decided, organized, administered by Accused No. 1 being Managing Director and Accused No. 2 being Deputy Managing Director, Accused No. 3 Chairman, Accused No. 4 Whole Time Director, Accused No. 5 Finance Director with consultation of other Directors from Accused Nos. 6 to 12 and Accused No. 13 was Sr. Manager (Finance) of accused Company No. 14. So Accused Nos. 1 to 12 and Accused No. 13 are also responsible for all the transactions and business affairs done on behalf of accused Company No. 14 and are responsible for all the financial affairs and administration of accused Company No. 14.”

5. A.K. Singhania is the Accused No. 7 and Vikram Prakash is Accused No. 9 in this complaint.

6. In Complaint Case No. 1293 of 1996, the allegations with which we are concerned in these appeals read as follows:

“4. All the business and financial affairs of the accused Company No. 1 are decided, organized, administered by the Accused No. 2 being Managing Director and Accused No. 3 being Managing Director, Accused No. 4 Chairman, Accused No. 5 Whole Time Director, Accused No. 6 Finance Director with consultation of other Directors from Accused Nos. 7 to 13 and Accused No. 14 was Sr. Manager (Finance) of Accused No. 1. At the time the offence was committed, they were incharge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the accused company. Therefore, they are responsible for day to day affairs and all the transactions and business done on behalf of the accused Company No. 1 and they are also responsible for all the financial affairs and administration of accused Company No. 1.”

7. A.K. Singhania and Vikram Prakash have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 8 and 10 in this complaint and in all other complaints, the allegations against A.K. Singhania are identical to what have been alleged in the Complaint Case No. 331 of 1996.

8. Taking into account the allegations made in the respective complaints, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, issued process to the accused aforesaid besides other accused to face trial for commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

9. Vikram Prakash, aggrieved by the order issuing summons to face trial under Section 138 of the Act in different complaints, filed applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order taking cognizance and issuing process. The applications filed by said Vikram Prakash were registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 13393-13399 of 2007. The High Court by its common order dated January 20, 2012 allowed all the applications and quashed his prosecution. While doing so, the High Court held as follows:

“