JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
Page 1375
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.809/2002 whereby the learned Judge has disposed of the objection holding that notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. could be served on the petitioner, in the facts of the case. Being aggrieved thereof the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that by a complaint under Section 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dated 04.08.1998 the complainant had sought to prosecute the first accused, namely, M/s Dighaul Company for the aforesaid offences.
3. In the relevant paragraph in the complaint, as to who is in charge of the working of the Company, it is mentioned that “accused no.1 is the company/firm which was in-charge and was responsible to the accused, at the time when offence was committed. Hence, the accused no.1, is liable to be prosecuted and punished in accordance with law by this Hon’ble Court, as provided under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.”
4. The offence is alleged to have been committed by accused no.1. Accused no.1 is none other than M/s Digphaul, Company. There is no other accused mentioned in the complaint. This complaint was then sought to be supported by way of affidavits wherein a list of Directors of the Company was given. The question that arises is whether in the absence of the necessary pleadings in the complaint could the Directors of the Company be held responsible and liable for the offence committed by the Company on the basis of the presumption to Section 141 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The answer is in the negative.
5. Counsel has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. in Crl.A.664/2002, where the Supreme Court has clearly indicated as to what are the necessary averments in the complaint that would constitute an offence and what is the nature of averments that is necessary to bring about the ingredients of the offence.
Page 1376
6. In the present case, a bare reading of the complaint would show that the necessary ingredients to set the criminal procedure into motion is missing, vis-a-vis the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Bagga, whose name does not figure anywhere in the complaint. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while taking cognizance of the offence could not have summoned the petitioner as accused at this juncture. That being the position in this case the judgment under challenge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 13.08.2002 and allow Criminal Revision Petition 767/2002. The same is disposed of as such. Criminal Misc. Appln.958/2002 also stands disposed of.