[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.293 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2005 IN CASE NO.535/S/2003 H.J.Bakshi ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Manish Bohra i/b A.S.Khan Advocate for Applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 DATE : JULY 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant-original accused has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Magistrate, 33rd Court, ballard Pier, Mumbai in Case No. 535/S/2003. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, the present revision is filed. [-2-] 3. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. The learned advocate for the applicant has stated that only because he had signed Vakalatnama on behalf of the company, he has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was the Director of the Company at the relevant time. There are averments in the complaint as well as in the evidence of the complainant that the applicant was the Director of the company and he was incharge of and he was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. It is also seen that the applicant had signed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Company. 4. Admittedly, the necessary averments are stated in the complaint as well as in the evidence of the complainant. The applicant is the Director of the company. The very act on the part of the applicant of signing Vakalatnama also bears out the fact that he was incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. This aspect has [-3-] been considered in detail by the Courts below. No case is made out for interference. 5. Revision Application is rejected and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]