MRS. ARUNA BANSAL Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - By an order dated 25.4.2006, I had directed that the trial court record would be necessary because the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sanjay Chaudhary submitted that the trial Court record be seen to ascertain as to whether there is anything on record to show that the said Sanjay Chaudhary was, in fact, the Managing Director or a Director in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company and responsible to the company. According to him, it is only then that he could be brought in within the extended liability under Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). However, today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the trial court record is not before this court, this revision petition can be disposed of in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2005(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 141 : 2005(3) Apex Criminal 229 : 2005(3) JCC (NI) 203 (SC) : 2005(6) Comp LJ 144 (SC) as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.V. Mazumdar and others Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and another, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 860 : 2005(2) Apex Criminal 98 : 2005(2) JCC (NI) 150 (SC) : 2005(4) Comp LJ 493 (SC).

(2.) He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and submitted that three questions came up for determination before a larger Bench on a reference made by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The three questions that were referred to were as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the answer to question (c) and stated that insofar as a signatory of a cheque is concerned, he would be clearly responsible for the incriminating act and would be covered under sub-section (2) of Sec. 141 of the said Act. The cheque in question in the present case has admittedly been signed by the said Sanjay Chaudhary and whether he was the managing director or director in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company would be an additional point in the favour of the petitioner. The mere fact that he was an officer of the company and was a signatory of the cheque would bring him within the ambit of Sec. 141(2) of the said Act in view of the clear dictum of the Supreme Court as noted above in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra).