1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3863 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.3863 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.3863 OF 2007 Vinod B. Agarawala : Applicant. versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents. Mr.C.K.Pendse i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the applicant. Mr.Anant R.Bamne for Respondent No.2. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED DATED DATED : JANUARY 28, 2008. : JANUARY 28, 2008. : JANUARY 28, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The present application takes an exception to an order passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing the revision application filed by the present applicant seeking quashing of the order of issue of process passed by the trial 2 Court. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the averments made in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not make out any offence having regard to the provision of Section 141 of the Act so far as the present applicant is concerned. It is also submitted that in the verification statement, no categorical role has been assigned to the present applicant. 3. Turning to the complaint and to be more precise Para 2 thereof reveals the case of the complainant thus :- "Accused No.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director and Accused No.3 to 11 are the Directors of the Accused No.1 having their place of business and place of residences as mentioned in the title of the Complaint. Accused No.2 to 11 are responsible for day to day affairs of Accused No.1 Company and with consent and consultation of each other issued the cheques mentioned hereinafter and as such 3 are also liable for the offence." 4. In the first place it is averred in the complaint that the present applicant along with others is responsible for day to day affairs of the Accused No.1 Company and, secondly it is stated that with consent and consultation of each other the cheques in question were issued and, thus, the applicant and others are liable. 5. Having regard to the view taken by the apex Court in catena of cases, in my opinion, the Sessions Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the revision seeking quashing of the order of issue of process. Hence no interference with the order passed in the revision is called for. The application is rejected. [A.P.DESHPANDE,J] [A.P.DESHPANDE,J] [A.P.DESHPANDE,J]