1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT WPBOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Abhay Jadhav i/b Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the petitioner. Mr. Shitalkumar Kamble i/b Mr. Umesh Mankapure for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the Chairman, Managing Director and Branch Manager of Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the complainant was that the cheque issued by the said bank 2 was dishonoured and therefore the respondents have committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused. The accused nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Managing Director and Branch Manager, did not challenge the order of issuance of process and face the trial. However, the Chairman of the bank challenged the order of issuance of process qua him by filing a revision application before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 29th September 2008 allowed the revision application and quashed the complaint qua the accused no.1 who is the respondent no. 1 herein. That order is impugned in this petition. 3. The learned Sessions Judge held that there are no averments in the complaint as to how the accused no.1- respondent no.1, at the time when the offence was allegedly 3 committed, was in charge of and responsible to the bank for conduct of the business of the bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to point out any averment from the complaint which shows that the respondent no. 1 – Chariman of the bank was in charge of and responsible to the bank for conduct of its business. The respondent no.1 is a non- executive chairman. In my view, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted and is in consonance with sub-section (1) of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)