1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1733 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. of 2009 M/s Krishna Petroyarn Ltd .. Applicant. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors ..Respondents. Mr Laxman P. Kanal Advocate for the applicant. Mr A.S.Shitole, A.P.P. ,for the State. CORAM: : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATE : 2nd July, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. It is the application of leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 arising out of the proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881( the N.I.Act for short). Earlier, in the criminal complaint lodged against accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, accused No.1 company and its Directors Accused Nos. 2 to 6 were made as accused. Reportedly, during the pendency of such criminal complaint, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 2 did not appear and reported to be absconding and case against them was separated leaving accused No.1-company and only two Directors i.e. accused Nos. 4 and 6 to face the trial. The complainant examined himself. There is no evidence adduced by any of the accused. The Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 4 and 6 holding that they are responsible for the offence. In fact, it is crucial to note that such offence was committed by the company and its Directors were roped as the respondents for day to day affairs as alleged in the complaint. However, it appears that the operative order of the M.M. Court directed only Accused Nos. 4 and 6 to pay the compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs which is in fact the dishonoured cheque amount. The said judgment and order was challenged by the accused before the Sessions Court, Mumbai and the said appeal was allowed on the ground that there was no specific proof brought by the complainant as to involvement of accused Nos. 4 and 6, some of the Directors of accused No.1, in day to day activities of the company. This was, more so, on the premise that according to the complainant all the loan proposals and correspondence was dealt with by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 who are the Directors of Accused No.1 company and who subsequently absconded. It is also crucial to note that the Trial M.M. Court while holding responsibility on accused 3 Nos. 4 and 6 should have held that the amount was required to be paid by Accused No.1-company. However, no such specific directions were given in the final order. 2. After hearing the rival submissions and considering the substantive evidence, copy of which is produced in the present matter, in the opinion of this Court, there is a triable issue in appeal before this Court in order to check the correctness and legality of the order of the Sessions Court of allowing the appeal on conviction. In the result, present leave petition is allowed. Appeal is admitted. Call for R and P. (A.R.JOSHI,J)