IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1347 OF 2001 Shri Pradeep Kumar Deora. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2001 Shri Pradeep Kumar Deora. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Subhash Jha, i/b. M/s. Law Global, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. These Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. The Petitioner in both the Petitions has been arraigned as an accused in complaints filed by 2nd Respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued in the said complaints filed by the 2nd Respondent in these Petitions. The prayer in these Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is for quashing the complaint and the order issuing process passed thereon. ..2/- : 2 : 2. In normal course, the Petitioner would have been relegated to a remedy of filing a Revision Application under Section 397 of the said Code. However, I find that on 18th October, 2001, notice was issued by this Court and on 15th January, 2003, Rule was issued by this Court. Hence it will be unjust to direct the Petitioner to adopt the other remedy after lapse of more than 5 years. 3. The only submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent has not complied with the requirements of Section 141 of said Act of 1881. The submission is that the averments made in the complaint are not at all in confirmity with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V/s. Neela Bhalla and Anr. [(2005) 8 SCC 89]. He has also invited my attention to the averments in the verification statement recorded of the authorised representative of the complainant. He pointed out that the Petitioner was not the signatory to the cheques in dispute and the cheques have been signed by the Accused No.11. None appeared for the second Respondent - Complainant though notice is duly served. 4. I have carefully considered this submissions. The only averment against the Petitioner who has been arraigned as Accused No.4 is in Paragraph 3 of the complaint. The relevant portion of Paragraph 3 reads thus: “The accused No.1 is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. The Accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the Directors of Accused ..3/- : 3 : No.1 company, Accused No.11 is the president (finance) of the Accused No.1 company. The Accused Nos.2 to 10 are responsible for the day to day management of the Accused No.1 company.” The averments made in both the complainants are identical. Same assertion has been made in the verification statements of the authorized representative of the complainant. The additional compilation produced by the Petitioner contains a xerox copy of the cheque which shows that the same is not signed by the Petitioner. 5. Thus, there is no specific averment made to the effect that at the time when offence was committed, the Petitioner was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It is merely asserted in complaint that the Petitioner was responsible for day to day management of the Accused No.1 company. Thus, there is non-compliance with the requirements set out in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supra). 6. Hence, the Petition must succeed. The order issuing process and the complaint is quashed as against the Petitioner. Rule is accordingly made absolute. (A.S. OKA, J.)