1 cri.wp no. 1288-1289-2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1288 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1289 OF 2010 Mr. Anupkumar Agarwal and Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Others ... Respondents Ms. Pravina Kanani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yashpal Jain for respondent no. 2. Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 08, 2011 P.C. 1. This is a common order in both the petitions filed to challenge the order of issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent no. 2. The petitioners are original accused nos. 4 and 5 and directors of original accused no. 1 company. Accused nos. 2 and 3 are the other directors. In the complaint, respondent no. 2 contends that pursuant to the orders placed by accused nos. 2 to 5 on behalf of accused no. 1 company, the 2 cri.wp no. 1288-1289-2010 complainant sold, supplied and delivered textile goods to accused no. 1. The delivery of the goods was taken by accused nos. 2 to 5. They had also received invoices for and on behalf of original accused no. 1. In the complaint further stats that accused nos. 2 to 5 as the directors of accused no. 1 have been looking after, conducting and managing the affairs of the company. The complaint thus shows that there are sufficient allegations made against the petitioners herein to connect them directly to the offences alleged in the complaint. Though admittedly the cheque has been signed by the original accused no. 2 for and on behalf of accused no. 1, in view of specific allegations against the other directors that can not be said that the complaint does not attribute any role to the petitioners. 2. It has been however, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the statement in verification recorded by the trial court however, does not specify the role stated in the complaint to the petitioners. The learned counsel has pointed out that there is no specific reference to accused nos. 2 to 5 in the statement of verification, the reference is to general word "accused". Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Versus State of West Bengal, reported in 1973 (3) SCC 753, the learned 3 cri.wp no. 1288-1289-2010 counsel submits that the purpose of statement in verification to be recorded by the Court under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure is essentially to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the term "accused" used in the statement in verification concerns all the five accused persons. He also points out that while issuing the order of process, the learned Judge has taken into consideration the complaint, the documents attached thereto as also the statement in verification on behalf of the complainant. 3. I find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners since it cannot be said that the complaint does not attribute specific role to the petitioners. The learned Magistrate after looking into the entire record has rightly issued the process. Hence, petitions are dismissed. [Judge]