JUDGMENT
O.P. Dwivedi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he rejected the petitioner’s application for discharge.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s. Sidhartha Super Spinning Mills Limited and its office bearers. It was alleged in the para 3 of the complaint that the accused No. 1 is the Company of which accused No. 2 is the Chairman, Accused No. 3 is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 4 to 13 are the Directors. All the accused Nos. 2 to 13 are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused company, thus all of them are jointly and severally liable for the acts done in furtherance of the business of accused company. A cheque bearing No. 530934 dated 12th January, 1998 for Rs. 5 lacs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Place, New Delhi was issued on behalf of the accused company in favor of the complainant, but the same was dishonoured on 14th July, 1998 with the remarks “Drawer’s Signature Incomplete”. The amount was not paid to the complainant despite legal
notice dated 28th July, 1998 which led to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. After recording the preliminary evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned the accused persons whereupon the petitioner herein filed an application seeking discharge on the ground that he had resigned from the Directorship of the accused company on 23rd December, 1997 and submitted his form No. 32 in the office of the Registrar of Companies on 2nd April, 1998 i.e. much before the date of dishonoured cheque. Therefore, he is not responsible for bouncing of the cheque. Petitioner’s application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being of the view that question as to whether the accused/petitioner had resigned from the Directorship of the accused company is a question of fact which can be decided only after the evidence is recorded at the appropriate stage. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
3. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. This Court has consistently taken the view that once the accused persons have been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Act, the question as to whether such persons had resigned from the accused company and had ceased to be responsible for day to day business of the accused company can be decided only after evidence is led by the parties at the appropriate stage. Reference in this connection may be had to the case of Sunaina R. Mathani v. National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors., and Anurag Modi v. MSTC Ltd., Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala and Ors., 1983 CAR 7(SC) under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also in the case of Raj Lakshmi Mills v. Shakti Bhakoo, which was a case under Section 138 of the Act.
5. In view of the settled legal position, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.