WP.1517, 1518-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1517 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1518 OF 2009 Mr. Mannalal Khandelwal & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/b S. P. Narkar, for the Petitioners. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaints filed, filed under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the cheques in question have not been issued by the Company but by the individual. WP.1517, 1518-09 - 2 - It is therefore, submitted that the Company and its Directors are not liable and therefore, the process issued against them, is liable to be quashed. He submitted that it is apparent apparent on the face of the cheques that they were issued by the individual. In support of this case, the learned counsel relied on the common judgment of this Court in the case of – M/s. Viral Filaments Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [ Cri. Application Nos. 1830 of 2001 AND 1831 of 2001]. The ratio laid down in this judgment, will not apply to the facts of the present case, since in that case the applicant has handed over the cheques, signed by original accused No.3 as authorized signatory of original accused No.1, which is a proprietary concern. In the said case, averment made in the complaint showed that description of accused No. 1 was given as one Shri Balaram, who was sole proprietor of M/s. Sinca Fibres, a proprietary concern. The facts of the said case were entirely different and therefore, ratio of the said case would not apply to the present case. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. I have perused the averments of the complaints. Specific averments have been made in the complaint about the existing debt and liability, pursuant to which the said cheques were issued. It is an WP.1517, 1518-09 - 3 - admitted position that signatory of the cheques is one of the Directors of the Company. At this stage, it will not be possible to decide whether the said cheques were issued from the personal account of the Director or of the Company. That aspect will have be decided at the time of trial. In this view of this, it is not possible to interfere with the orders of issuance of process. Therefore, both the writ petitions are therefore dismissed. 4. It is made clear that all the contentions raised in both the petitions are kept open and shall be decided by the trial Court at the time of the final hearing of the complaints. The trial court is directed to expedite trial of the complaints. [ V. M. KANADE J.]