IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 23/03/2004 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. ASHOK KUMAR Crl.O.P. No.26087 of 2003 and Crl.M.P. No.7370 of 2003 Mohammed Idrose ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. Dugar Insultation India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Power of Attorney, B. Vijayalakshmi Dugar Towers, 123, Marshall Road, Chennai 8. 2. Lordrich Chemicals, rep. by Henry Raj Suit No.207, Balfour Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. 3. Henry Raj 4. Rama Ramanathan ... Respondents Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for as stated below. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Saravana Kumar For Respondents : Mr. T.K. Seshadri for R1 :O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.13565 of 2002 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent filed a complaint against the respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioner for dishonour of cheques for an amount of Rs.18,12,246.77 and hence the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioner and three others by the first respondent. The case is pending trial in C.C. No.13565 of 2002 on the file of the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The petitioner would contend that the subject matter of the cheque was issued by the third respondent in his individual capacity in a Savings Bank's account and therefore the Company is in no way liable and therefore the petitioner should not be proceeded with. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent contends that the liability of the petitioner is only for business transaction. In the course of business, the complainant/first respondent had placed an order for supply of materials and pursuant to the said order, the complainant advanced some amount towards completion of the order. But the accused, who are unable to honour the said commitment and for such liability, the subject matter of the cheque was issued by the second accused/third respondent. The complainant could not be aware, whether the cheque issued is the Company cheque or individual's cheque. The cheque was issued only to erase the liability incurred by the first accused/second respondent and therefore all the Directors of the accused-Company are liable for dishonour of the cheque. 5. On a cursory glance or look at the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that if an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is committed by a Company and for such commission of the offences by the Company, every person, who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, is also liable along with the company by a legal fiction. No firm or Company can act S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. without the help of human agency. The person in charge of the business or Company in most cases is responsible for the conduct of such business. 6. Thus, whether the cheque issued was savings Bank's account cheque or issued in individual capacity, the fact remains that the cheque was issued to discharge the liability of the Company and therefore if the cheque is dishonoured, the persons in charge of the affairs of the Company are also liable to be prosecuted. Hence I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P. is also dismissed. Index:- Yes Website:- Yes ssa. To 1. The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras. 