Case: BHARAT K. GUPTA Vs. ARUN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The proceeding arising out of a complaint filed by the appellant u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act for short) against Respondent 1 has been quashed by the High Court solely on the ground that in his order dated 28-2-1995 passed in compliance with Section 251 of the CrPC the Magistrate has not recorded that the petitioner (the respondent before us) alone was responsible to or in charge of the firm for conduct of the business so as to attract the provisions of Section 141 of the Act. 3. The above order of the High Court is patently wrong: firstly, because, while complying with Section 251 of the CrPC the Magistrate is required to incorporate the substance of accusation and not the derails as appearing in the complaint; secondly, because, liability u/s 141 of the Act is not limited to that of a single director of a company or a single partner of a firm; and, thirdly, because, in the complaint there is a specific averment that Respondent 1 runs the business of their firm named and styled as M/s. Arun Oil Industries.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. The above order of the High Court is patently wrong: firstly, because, while complying with Section 251 of the CrPC the Magistrate is required to incorporate the substance of accusation and not the derails as appearing in the complaint; secondly, because, liability u/s 141 of the Act is not limited to that of a single director of a company or a single partner of a firm; and, thirdly, because, in the complaint there is a specific averment that Respondent 1 runs the business of their firm named and styled as M/s. Arun Oil Industries.