1 appln.1175.10-4591-4793-4796.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 1175 of 2010 Yohan Khushru Jokhi & anr. ....Applicant v/s. Ashok Kumar Verma & ors. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 4591 of 2009 Yohan Khushru Jokhi & anr. ....Applicant v/s. Gobindram Gurnani & ors. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 4793 of 2009 Yohan Khushru Jokhi & anr. ....Applicant v/s. Ajay Atmaram Sachdev & ors. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 4794 of 2009 WITH Criminal Application No. 4795 of 2009 Yohan Khushru Jokhi ....Applicant v/s. Subhadraben Ramanlal Vakharia & ors. ....Respondents WITH Criminal Application No. 4796 of 2009 Yohan Khushru Jokhi & anr. ....Applicant 2 appln.1175.10-4591-4793-4796.09.sxw v/s. M/s. Pride Finvest Co. Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ....Respondents Mr. R.R. Salvi for the applicant in all the matters. Mr. L.V. Jain for respondent no.1. Mr. D.R. More-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 23rd June, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the process issued in Criminal Complaint Nos.13372/SS/2009, 4233/SS/2009, 158/SS/2009, 1538/SS/2009, 1539/SS/2009 and 1540/SS/2009 respectively. The Complainants-respondents have filed the complaints for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The main accused in Criminal cases is M/s. Cure Pharma. The cheque in question has been issued by accused nos. 3 and 5 on behalf of the accused no.1. The present applicants have been impleaded as accused nos. 2 and 4 as partners of the accused no.1, contending therein that they are responsible for day-to-day affairs of the accused no.1 and liable and responsible for the conduct of the accused no.1. 3. This Court in the case of Parag Bhikalal Tejani v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. in Cr. W.P. No. 1342/2010 decided on 17th June, 2011, relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330 has held 3 appln.1175.10-4591-4793-4796.09.sxw that for fastening the criminal liability on a Director or a partner of the firm by taking aid of the Section 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not sufficient only to aver that the partner/director was incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the company/firm and what role was played by him in the transaction in question has to be specifically averred so as to fasten the vital liability on such partners. However, it has been held that this would not be applicable insofar as the Managing Director/Joint Managing Director of the company or signatory to the cheque is concerned. By same analogy unless a partner is a managing partner, unless the averments as stated hereinabove are made in the complaint, vicarious liability cannot be fastened on a partner only by virtue of he being partner. Admittedly, present applicants are neither partners nor signatories to the cheque in question. 4. In that view of the matter, petition will have to be allowed. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Needless to state that the proceedings insofar as the other accused persons i.e. the firm and other partners who are signatories, shall proceed in accordance with law. (B.R. GAVAI, J)