[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.201 OF 2007 Shri.Surendra Raman Nair ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.A.H.H.Ponda advocate for applicant Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State Mr.K.K.Malpathak Adv.for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4-original accused nos.2 to 4 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. On the complaint of the applicant, the respondent nos.2 to 4 came to be prosecuted in CC No.3130/S/1999. In the said case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court Andheri, Mumbai issued process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments against the respondent nos.2 to 4. Respondents preferred revision application before [-2-] the Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. The said revision came to be allowed and the process came to be quashed. 3. Process came to be quashed mainly on two grounds, first ground is that there was no specific averment in the complaint that at the relevant time the accused were incharge of the conduct of the business of the company and were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The second ground is that the cheque was issued by original accused no.1 i.e. Finny Jacob in his personal capacity. The cheque in question was drawn on Centurion Bank Ltd. in favour of Surendra R.Nair i.e. complainant for Rs.2,75,000/- on 9.6.1999 and the same was not signed by any of the Respondents/accused, but the same was signed by other accused namely Finny Jecob in his personal capacity. The said cheque does not bear rubber stamp of the firm namely Mrs. Manna Trade Lines and therefore, it is very much clear that the said cheque was issued by the original accused no.1 namely Finny Jecob in his individual capacity to the payee i.e. complainant, thus applicants/accused nos.2 to 4 cannot be held liable [-3-] as applicant nos.1 to 3 are not signatories to the said cheque either in individual capacity or in official capacity of the business. Therefore, the impugned order of issuance of process against the applicants/accused came to be quashed. 4. Looking to the fact that the cheque was issued by original accused no.1 in his personal capacity, none of the respondents herein can be held to be liable under Section 138 r.w. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Looking to the facts of this case, I find that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is correct, proper and legal and no interference is called for, hence, application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]