1 (crim wp 2084 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2084 OF 2010 Ashok Govindrao Rao and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Pramod Y.Keni i/b. M/s. Thakordas and Madgavkar for Petitioners Mr.A.S.Shitole -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 25TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara dated 1 st March, 2009. It is submitted that necessary averments have not been made in the complaint in order to make the Petitioners vicariously liable for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the Petitioners are not the directors of the said bank and they were only helping the bank to resolve the financial crisis. It is 2 (crim wp 2084 of 2010) submitted that the bank officials had malafide filed the complaints against the Petitioners. The learned counsel for the Petitioners had relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.[AIR 2007 Supreme Court 912] in support of the said submission. 3. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perusal of the complaint clearly shows that the relevant averments are made against the Petitioners. It is stated in the complaint that accused Nos.1 to 12 are in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the bank and are responsible for its day-to-day activities. Since the relevant averments are made in the complaint, the judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, in my view, will not apply. It is also submitted that separate complaint has not been filed against the Petitioners and, therefore, the directors cannot be prosecuted independently. Perusal of the complaint, clearly shows that the bank is made an accused along with the other directors. Hence, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. The Petitioners will have to establish these facts during the trial. 3 (crim wp 2084 of 2010) 4. All questions raised by the Petitioners in this petition are kept open. The writ petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)