:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.448 OF 2008 Shashikant A. Paradkar. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Sandeep Velkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 7th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a writ petition by which the petitioner who is original accused No.4 in Criminal Complaint No.219/S/2004 challenges the order issuing process which has been subsequently confirmed in revision by the Sessions Court. It is vehemently argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no sufficient averments in the complaint to fasten the vicarious liability on the person of the accused. In that regard the averments made in Para-3 of the complaint read as under. "The Accused No.1 is a limited company and the Accused No.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of Accused No.1 and the Accused No.3 to 6 are the Directors of Accused No.1, having their respective addresses as stated in the title above. The accused Nos. 2 to 6 were/are looking after the affairs, dealings and :2: management of the Accused No.1 at the relevant time and they are liable and responsible for their dealings and management of the affairs of the Accused No.1". 2. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.P.G. Nair Vs. M/s. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. reported in JT. 2000 (Suppl.) S.C. 519. In fact the said Judgment of the Apex Court was considered in detail by the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another reported in 2005 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1975 wherein in Para-19, the Apex Court laid down the proposition that it is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. 3. In a subsequent Judgment, the Apex Court in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy and anr.Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 4602 two Judges of the Supreme Court held as under. "It may be true that it is not necessary for the complainant to specifically reproduce the wordings of the section but what is required is a clear statement of fact so as to enable the :3: court to arrive at a prima facie opinion that the accused are vicariously liable". 4. In my view the averments made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient compliance with the requirement for making averments which are consistent with Section-141 of the Act. 5. Relying upon further observations made in Sabitha Rammurthy (supra) in the following terms.. "In terms of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant is bound to make statement on oath as to how the offence has been committed and how the accused persons are responsible therefor". it was contended that there was no specific averments in the verification statement to show that as to how the offence has been committed. On perusal of the verification statement I find that the verification has been made by one Mr. Vikas B. Mandhare who is the constituted attorney of the complainant. He categorically asserts that he has filed complaint against the accused persons. He states that the accused No.1 is a limited company. The accused No.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of accused No.1 and the accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the Directors of the :4: accused No.1. He also states that the accused persons are liable for prosecution U/s. 138 of the N.I.Act as well as the offence under Section 403, 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. It is true that he has not reproduced the averments made in Para-3 of the complaint. But it is my view that if he confirms that he has filed the complaint which is duly signed by him then it is not necessary to reiterate the averments made in the complaint. It cannot be lost sight that the complainant is injured person and for the purpose of initiation of the criminal proceeding, too technical a view cannot be taken in the matter save and except when absolutely required by law. In my view, there is no substance in the petition and the petition is therefore, rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)