PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta calling upon him to face his trial for an offence punishable under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Challenging the said order the petitioner moved a criminal revision before this Court on the ground that mandatory provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied with. The said criminal revision was allowed and this Court directed the Court below to hold an enquiry in this regard. Pursuant to such order, an enquiry was held and then after taking into account the report of the enquiry, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta issued process against the petitioner. In this criminal revision, the petitioner challenged the said proceeding on the ground that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. It is submitted that the police was directed to enquire into the matter but police without making any enquiry submitted its report and pursuant to that summons has been issued. It is contended although the petitioner was implicated in the case in question on the allegation that he happened to be the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time when cheque was issued but during the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police made no enquiry to ascertain whether those allegations are correct or not, therefore, the enquiry report is of no consequences and the process issued on that basis is to be quashed.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel of the opposite party No. 2 opposed this application and referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Krishan v. Delhi Municipal Corporation,, AIR 1989 SC 47, submitted that by designation makes it evident that a Managing Director is a person, who is responsible for managing the day -to -day affairs of the accused company. He then drew my attention to page 32 of this application which is the inter MCA Director details of the accused company maintained at the office of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India and pointed out that petitioner was designated in the records of the Corporate Affairs as the Managing Director of the Company. It is prayed that this application to be dismissed at once with exemplary costs.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts that petitioner was implicated in the case on the allegation that he happened to be the Managing Director of the accused Company and was responsible for conducting its day -to -day affairs when the alleged offence was committed by the company and when from petitioner's own showing i.e. from the inter MCA Directors details issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, it is evident that he was the Managing Director of the Company when the alleged offence was committed and the ratio of the decision of Ram Krishan v. Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra), I am of the opinion, when the requirements of the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been complied with by the Court below in terms of the order passed by this Court, no further enquiry is needed in the matter to ascertain the frivolity of the complaint more particularly when it is an admitted position that the petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company and because of his position, he is an officer responsible to the company for managing its day -to -day affaires.