1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2008 Osmanabad Janata Sah. Bank ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Ms.Aparna Ashtikar i/by Shri D.R.Talankar,advs. For the Applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP For the Respondent nO.1./State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 14, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the revision applicant, who is original complainant. According to the applicant, respondent no.1 is a company of which accused no.2 to 5 are the directors. As per the resolution passed by the company, accused no.2 was responsible to look after the finances of the company and he was also authorised signatory on behalf of the company. Accused no.2 had issued certain cheques in favour of the applicant and those cheques were dishonoured and notices were issued by the applicant to the company as well as other directors. On their failure, complaint was filed under Section 138 against the accused no.1/Company and its directors. The learned Magistrate issued the process against all the accused. Accused no.4 D.N.Wadekar, who is the respondent no.2 in the present revision application, moved revision 2 application no.207/07 before the Sessions Court seeking to set aside process. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by the impugned order dated 18.12.2007 allowed the revision application and set aside the order for issuance of process against the accused no.4 on the ground that in the application nowhere it is stated that he was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. He found support from the several authorities of the Supreme Court including S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla AIR 2005 SC 3512. On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that there is no allegation that the accused no.4 was in-charge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. On the other hand, there is clear averment in paragraph 1 of the complaint that the company had passed resolution appointing the accused no.2 to be responsible for the financial matters and he was appointed to be authorised signatory for dealing with the bank. In these circumstance s, I find no fault, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. 2 Therefore, revision application stands dismissed. 3 (J.H. BHATIA,J.)