WP.3467-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3467 OF 2010 Mrs. Mona K. Lakhani & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. M/s. Synergy Corporate Financial Advisor Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mrs. Seema S. Singh, for the Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, on a complaint filed under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the petitioners are the Directors of the Company and their role has not been specified in the complaint and therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under S. 138 read with S. 141 of the N. I. Act. WP.3467-10 - 2 - 2. I have perused the complaint. In paragraph 2 and 3 of the complaint, following averments have been made- “2] I know all the Accused above named. Accused No.1 is the Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business at the address mentioned above. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the Director of Accused No.1 and all of them were responsible for day-to-day affairs and management of Accused No.1 when the Cheque which is the subject matter of this Complaint was presented and also when the cause of action has arisen. 3] I say that in the regular course of their business, Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 had approached the Complainant Company with a request to arrange Loan from Barclays Bank. Accordingly, Complainant Company had given Professional Assistance and Consultancy to the Accused and in fact arranged Loan from Barclays Bank.” 3. In my view, in the aforesaid paragraphs, the complainant has clearly stated that they were in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs and management of the accused No.1 Company and their roles have also been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, cannot be accepted. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order of issuance of process. The writ petition is therefore, WP.3467-10 - 3 - dismissed. 4. The petitioners, however, being the lady Directors, are exempted from appearing in the trial Court. Their plea may be recorded through the advocate. Their statements under S. 313 Cr. P.C. may also be recorded through the advocate, provided they give an undertaking to the trial Court that they will not dispute their identity or question the correctness of the answers recorded in the statements under S. 313 Cr. P.C. The trial Court shall follow the procedure laid down under S. 313(5) Cr. P.C. and also the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of – Keya Mukherjee, Appellant vs. Megma Leasing Ltd. & Anr., Respondents [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 447]. 5. The trial Court, however, may cancel the exemption, granted to the petitioners, in the event their advocate remains absent on two dates. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. [ V. M. KANADE J.]