1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4457 OF 2008 Nisarga Forest India Ltd. through its Directors S. G. Khanwilkar & Ors. ..Applicants versus Mahendra L. Gadge & Anr. ..Respondents Mrs. Gauri K. Jadhav for Applicants. Ms. R. V. Pradhan i/b. Raja Thakare & Mr. A. M. Chimalkar for Respondent No. 1. Mr. D. R. More – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 12TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order of conviction as upheld by the Sessions Court in Revision. The applicants are Directors of the company. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint alleging that accused Nos. 2 to 6 were in charge and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The accused also admitted in statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that accused are Directors and are looking after the affairs and business of the company. As 2 such they have been held vicariously liable for the offence in respect of the cheque in question. The cheque at Exhibit 16 is drawn on Bank of Baroda and signed by accused Nos. 2 and 5. It bears the seal of the company. There is a letter dated 27th November, 1999 issued by the company informing that the cheque was issued and that it will be encashed. 2. The only contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the respondent No. 1 did not produce the investment certificate issued by the company showing that he had made an investment in the company. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the liability was not duly proved. It may be true that the investment certificate was not produced by the respondent No. 1 - complainant. However, there is other evidence on record, namely, that of Ashok Kachale who was examined by the respondent as an agent for collection of amount from the depositors. He has produced on record receipts which are on the letter head of the company and the names of the depositors including the name of the respondent No.1 is mentioned in the receipt. The certificate number is also mentioned on all those receipts. Accordingly, it has been held by the courts below that the respondent No.1 despited a sum of Rs.63,000/- towards investment under their scheme in respect of which the cheque was issued. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the 3 applicants. 3. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the application, which is hereby dismissed. 4. The respondent no.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicants in the Sessions Court. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants seeks stay of this judgment for a period of four weeks to enable the applicants to approach the Supreme Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be a stay for a period of four weeks from today. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)