IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1703 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1704 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1705 OF 2009. Parvez Damania ..... ..... ... Petitioner. V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... ... Respondents. None for the petitioner. Mr.Subodh Jha i/by M/s.Paras Kuhad & Associates, Adv. for the respondent No.2. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 3rd March, 2010. PC: None for the petitioner. The grievance raised in the present petition is that verification before the learned Magistrate has been done in a mechanical manner. It is submitted that there is no whisper in the verification that the petitioner who is stated to be a Director of the company was responsible for the conduct and affairs of the company and therefore the said averment is not permissible under section 141. 2. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & Anr. vs. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 (3) Bom.C.R. 258 has taken the view that verification under section 200 cannot be read in mechanical manner. 3. Perusal of verification would reveal that there is no mention in the verification as to how the present petitioner is responsible for 1 the conduct and affairs of the accused No.1. In that view of the matter the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further with the complaint in accordance with law laid down by this Court in Amarnath’s case (supra). 3.3.2010. 2