SSK/916 1 WP/3261.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3261 OF 2011 Mr. Laxminarain Mani Tripathi & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus M/s. Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhayay i/b. Mr. Ramprakash Pandey, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/b. M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. S. V. Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the case of Criminal Complaint No.1147 of 2010 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magitrate First Class, 5th Court at Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The said case was filed by respondent no. 1 against M/s. Wellbert Pharmaceuticals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and their directors who are arraigned as accused nos. 2 to 4. SSK/916 2 WP/3261.11 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore, they cannot be made vicariously liable for dishonour of the cheque which came to be issued by accused no.1- company and signed by accused no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of learned Single Judge passed on 17th June, 2011 in group of writ petitions headed by Writ Petition No.1342 of 2010. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the contrary, opposed the petition. He submits that there are sufficient averments in the compliant, so as to attract the liability of the present petitioners under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2010, considered the judgment of the Apex Court in SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla [(2005) 8 SCC 89] & National Small Industries Corporation Limited Versus Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330, and on the basis of ratio of these decisions held that the averments in the case before him are not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, respondent no.1-complainant in Para (3) of the said complaint has made following averments: 1. The accused no.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical formulation. SSK/916 3 WP/3261.11 2. The accused nos. 2 to 4 being the Directors of accused no.1 are dealing with the day-to-day activities of accused no.1- company and representing the said Company and also placing the orders for their business. In Para 12 of the said complaint, the following averments are made : “12. The cheque in question has been signed by the Accused No.2 on behalf of Accused No.1. The Accused No.2 to 4, being the Directors of Accused No.1, were looking after the day-to-day affairs of Accused No.1. The Accused No.2 to 4 personally approached Complainant Company for supply of total 1000 kilograms of Tramado HCL BP and gave assurance of payment against the said supplies. The Accused No. 2 to 4 were personally interacting with the Complainant Company for supply of Tramodo HCL BP. The Accused No.2 to 4 were looking after the functioning of Accused No.1 when the supply was made to them, when the cheque in question was issued, when the statutory notice was issued to the Accused. Hence, the Accused No.2 to 4 were duty bound to honour the cheque in question which was issued by them, on behalf of Accused No.1, to the Complainant against the aforesaid supply.” SSK/916 4 WP/3261.11 The above averments show that the present petitioners were responsible for day-to-day affairs of respondent no.1-company. They have taken active participation in the transaction in question, and therefore, this is not the case where stereotyped allegations are made against the petitioners. In fact, specific allegations are made against these accused, so as to attract liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Taking into consideration, the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)