1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2000 OF 2009. Rajiv S/o Tilakraj Khungar ... Applicant. Versus Prawin Haribhau Sonwane ... Respondent. ... Mr.R.P.Bhumkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.D.Pande, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.09.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The Criminal complaint was filed by the applicant for offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was registered vide SCC No.5392/08. The contention of the applicant was that the Respondent issued two cheques for Rs. 2 1,89,000/- (Rupees one lac eighty nine thousand) each towards the discharge of liability for payment of transported goods, octroi tax, service tax etc. Both the cheques were presented to the payee bank. They were dishonoured. The demand notice was duly served but it was replied to the effect that the Respondent was not individually liable to pay any amount and the cheques were not issued in the individual capacity but as an authorised signatory for and on behalf of the M/s Badal Bahar Mineral Water Company Ltd. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the cheques were issued by the Respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate also held that the dishonour of the cheques and other ingredients have been established. Still, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate rendered judgment of acquittal mainly on the ground that M/s Badal Bahar Mineral Water Co.Ltd. was not joined as an accused and there could not be individual liability of the Respondent to pay such amount. 3 4. Mr.Bhumkar, learned advocate invited my attention to certain observations in "Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt.Ltd." 2008 AIR SCW 3608. It appears that there is a difference of opinion as regards maintainability of prosecution against authorised signatory or person incharge or Director of the Company in his individual capacity without arraying the Company as accused. The Apex Court has referred the matter to the larger Bench for decision. A similar question seems to have been involved in the present appeal. 5. Mr.K.D.Pande, learned advocate invited my attention to certain observations in "D.Chandra Reddy Vs. Gowrisetty Prabhakar Rao and another" 1999 ALL MR (Cri) Journal 97, "Bimal Singh Kothari Vs. State of Goa and another" 2008 (2) DCR 374, "M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and another" 2006 Cri.L.J.4607 and "Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G.Hegde" 2008 Cri.L.J.1172. At this juncture, I do not find it necessary to deal with the case law referred by him inasmuch as the main 4 controversy involved in the appeal is subjudice before the Larger Bench in view of reference made by the Division Bench of the Apex Court. Considering the conflicting views of the Apex Court on the said question as regards the individual liability of the authorised signatory or Director of a Company, there is prima facie reason to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, leave to appeal is granted. 6. Admit. 7. Call R & P. 8. Print dispensed with. 9. The appellant to furnish private paper book within ten (10) weeks. 10. The Respondent would be at liberty to mention for final hearing if decision of the larger Bench is rendered and he is likely to be 5 supported by such decision. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp200009