1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.252 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2007 Mr.Raman Das .. Applicant/Appellant. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.V.M.Bhardwaj, for the Applicant/Appellant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre,A.P.P.for the State. .... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATE : 16th July 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.V.M.Bhardwaj for the applicant. This is the application for adding the name of one Smt.Sudha R.Doshi as additional respondent on the premise that she is also a Director of respondent no.2-M/s.Akta Developers and in view of death of respondent no.3 Shri.R.H.Doshi, then Director of M/s.Akta Developers. Except said Smt.Sudha R.Doshi, there is nobody else to represent said M/s.Akta Developers. 2 2. It is to be ascertained before this Court whether there is a legal responsibility on said Smt.Sudha R.Doshi as alleged Director of respondent no.2 M/s.Akta Developers. When the offence alleged against M/s.Akta Developers is a bouncing of cheque and punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Admittedly, criminal complaint filed by present applicant/complainant for bouncing of cheque and acquittal of M/s.Akta Developers and its Director Mr.R.H.Doshi. Against such acquittal, leave petition was also preferred before this Court and leave was granted and appeal was admitted. During the pendency of the appeal, Shri R.H.Doshi expired and now applicant had preferred present application for amendment in the appeal memorandum for impleading Smt.Sudha R.Doshi as additional respondent. 3. It is ascertained from the entire averments in the complaint preferred before the trial Magistrate that only the allegations as to 3 commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, were against the Company M/s.Akta Developers and its then Director Mr.R.H.Doshi. Nowhere in the said complaint, it was alleged that Smt.Sudha R.Doshi was also one of the Directors, much less, having day to day involvement into the management and affairs of M/s.Akta Developers. It is a well settled position that none of the Directors or office bearers of any Company or Partnership Firm should held responsible but only those who are having active control over the management of the Company or Firm are liable to be responsible for the offences committed by such juristic person, the Company, as in the present matter. In absence of any such specific allegations against Smt.Sudha R.Doshi in the original complaint, it would not be in the fitness of the situation and also it is not warrantied by law that she should be liable as a respondent to face the present appeal in which the acquittal of M/s.Akta Developers is challenged. 4 4. Though it is submitted by learned advocate Shri V.M.Bhardwaj on behalf of the applicant that then Director Smt.Sudha R.Doshi is required to represent M/s.Akta Developers, which is acquitted Company, in the opinion of this Court, without there being any such specific allegations and averments in the original complaint, such submissions cannot sustain. In the result, in the opinion of this Court, present application for amendment is not allowed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the entire appeal also shall stand disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI,J.)