1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.555 OF 2009 Mahendra Sadashiv Arolkar ...Applicant Vs. Lifeline India Marketing Services Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.556 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.557 OF 2009 Sunanda Baburao Tandel ...Applicant Vs. Lifeline India Marketing Services Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.558 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2009 Suchita R. Khode ...Applicant Vs. Lifeline India Marketing Services Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents 2 Mr.S.V.Marwadi, Advocate i/b. Sunita Sharma for the Applicants Mrs. A.A.Mane, A.P.P for the state CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 7TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The applicants are the complainants in several criminal cases filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 417 and 420 of the I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the Company of which respondents 2 and 3 are Directors. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vengurla dismissed the application of respondents 2 and 3 herein for discharging them from the offences punishable under Section 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2.The respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a Criminal Revision Application in Sessions Court before the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg. The Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg has allowed that application and discharged respondents 2 and 3 herein. That discharge has been challenged in this Criminal Revision Application. 3.Notice was issued upon respondents 2 and 3. They failed to appear. Their addresses have been changed. 3 The applicants herein (original complainants) have amended the applications to show the present address of respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 have been served by registered post at the present address. Respondents 2 has signed the acknowledgment on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondents have failed to appear despite service. These Criminal Revision Applications, have accordingly been kept for hearing since only a narrow point has to be considered. 4.The Respondent No.1 is the limited company. Respondents 2 and 3 are its Directors. Respondents 2 and 3 have both signed the cheques, which came to be dishonoured as Directors of respondent No.1 Company. They are, therefore, liable as the signatories of the cheques as also the Directors of the Company, incharge and management of the Company. 5.As per the judgment in the case of S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla, 2005 Cr.L.J.4140 the respondents as the signatories of the cheque who are Directors of the Company are liable upon the dishonoured cheque. Further as per the judgment in the case of K.K.Ahuja Vs. V.K.Vora & Anr. 2009(2) S.C.C. (Cri.) 749 also the signatories and the Directors are liable upon the dishonoured cheques. 4 Consequently, there is material irregularity in the order of learned Sessions Judge which goes contrary to the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (Supra) despite a specific mention about the liability of the signatories of the cheques in para 20 of the judgment quoted by the learned Sessions Judge. 6.Consequently, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 15th June 2009 is set aside. The Criminal Case No.24/2004 which is now numbered as 18/2009 shall proceed in the learned Magistrate s Court against the respondents herein. 7.All the Criminal Revision Applications are disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)