1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1052 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1053 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1054 OF 2011 KSL & Industries Limited .Applicant V/s. Paresh I Mehta & anr. .Respondents Mr.Tejpal Thakkar, Advocate, for the Applicant in all matters Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP, for Respondent No.2  State in Cri.Appln.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011 Ms Rajeshree Gadhvi, APP for Respondent No.2  State in Cri.Appln.No.1054 of 2011 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. These are the applications for leave to file an appeal against Judgment of acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai acquitting respondent No.1 for the 2 offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by reversing Judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14 th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai. The respondent is signatory of a cheque, who was added as original accused No.9 in the complaint about dishonour of three cheques. The Company itself with whom the respondent was working has gone in liquidation and since the Complainant did not take steps against that Company, proceedings against the Company come to an end. Some other co-accused have been convicted by the Magistrate. Conviction of some accused have been upheld by the Sessions Court. Accused No.2 has compounded the offence with the Complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the signatory of the cheque implies the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director and therefore, the present respondent could not be held responsible for the affairs of the Company. 3 There is also reference to the resignation of the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that Judgment of the Supreme Court in SMS Pharmaceutical Ltd. V/s. Neeta Bhalla & ors, reported at AIR 2005 SC 3512 has not been correctly read by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court in para 16 of the Judgment clearly shows that as far as signatory of the cheque is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act. The learned Judge seems to have concluded from this judgment that it is the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director alone, who is responsible and merely signatory of the cheque on behalf of the Company would not be responsible. In view of this, due to misreading, the learned Judge seems to have reversed conviction of the respondent. Leave granted. 3. Admit. 4 4. Call for R & P. 5. Action under Section 390. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)