K SUBRAMANIAM Vs. KAMAKASHI EXTRACTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are facing trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Magistrate. Quashing is sought only on the ground that complaint does not disclose that the petitioners were responsible for the management of the affairs of the company and they were in any way responsible for the financial dealings of the company. It is further stated that no specific averment is made with respect to the present petitioners in the complaint.

(2.) The petitioners are accused Nos. 3 to 6. It is stated in the complaint that A-3 to A-6 are the Directors of the company. It is further stated in the complaint,

(3.) In view of Section 141 it is clear that, if a person is responsible for any of the things done or responsible for committing any of the things mentioned in Section 141 (2), he is guilty of an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint in the present case discloses that the cheque was issued with the consent of the present petitioners. It also discloses that they were the Directors of the Company. Since the cheques which got bounced were issued with the consent of the petitioners who had been Directors at the relevant point of time, therefore, prima facie, there is an offence made out under Section 141. It is now well settled that, all the ingredients of an offence need not be stated in the complaint itself. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on various judgments of this Court and also a judgment of the Supreme Court being Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67 : 1983 Cri LJ 159 in which the Supreme Court held at page 162; of Cri. L. J. :-