JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner No. 1 is a non-banking financial company and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the Managing Director and the Director of the said company. While accepting the fixed deposits payable on or after the maturity of their deposits the company had issued refund orders/interest warrants provided by the S.B.I. to its depositors. The respondent No. 2 had made certain deposits and the proper refund orders and interest given were issued in his favour which were to be encashed on or after 27.3.1998. It is stated that because of certain unilateral decisions against the petitioner by the S.B.I., the facility to be drawn at par was withdrawn and, therefore, there was the alleged default on behalf of the company for making the proper refund. The respondent No. 2 proceeded for realisation of the amount. The money having not been paid, a notice is said to have been issued to the company which is said to have been replied, however, ultimately the respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cognizance on which was taken on 24.8.1998 by the trial court. Aggrieved against the action of. taking of cognizance, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 18.8.99. The petitioner has approached this court in challenging the order dated 24.8.1998 and 18.8.1999. 2. It is the submission of the petitioner that as a matter of fact they had not closed the account, but the banker suo moto and unilaterally and suddenly withdrew the facility and closed the account for which the petitioners cannot be fastened with criminal liability. It is stated that they were not at fault. It is further stated that because of the reason that the respondents had not drawn the amount on 27.3.1998 i.e. the date when the liability had arisen, therefore, the petitioner was not liable for any criminal action. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2, Director of the company is not liable. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in the misc. petition and the same are liable to be dismissed. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2, Director of the company is not liable. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in the misc. petition and the same are liable to be dismissed. 4. Admittedly, in the present case, the banker had closed the account because of some default made by the company or the agreement in between him and the company. The company was bound to make the payment as per refund voucher. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEPC Micon Ltd. & Ors. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. 1999 IV AD (S.C.) 453 that dishonour of the cheque because of closing of the account is fully covered under the penal statute of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. This court in the case of M/s. Pearey Lal Rajendra Kumar Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & another IX 1994(3) Crime 308 had held that it is only after evidence of both parties that it can be determined as to what was real reason for dishonouring of cheque, proceedings cannot be quashed. 6. Yet in another case Halimuddin Ahmad v. Ashoka Cement Ltd. 1976 Cr.LJ 449 , the Single Bench of Patna High Court had held that while considering whether the accused should be summoned or not is, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and further reasons are to be applied which are to be taken into consideration after issuing process against the accused persons. 7. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the Directors are not liable in view of the specific provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as has been held by a bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Jain v. Gyanendra Pal Singh reported in 1995 Bank J. 707 , that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that where the offence has been committed by the company, every person who, at the time of offence was incharge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against. 8. 8. The Bombay High Court in the case of A. Chinnaswami v. M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company 1998 Bank J. 507 , had even gone to hold that even jurisdiction or the territorial jurisdiction is to be determined at the time when the evidence is led. 9. In the present case both the courts below after going into the facts of the case and evidence on record have gone into the matter in detail. There are no reasons for me to dis-agree with any of the judgment of the trial court or the revisional court. At the time of arguments, an offer was made by the respondent that in case the amount due along with interest is even paid now in the court, the complainant who is interested in the money may compromise the matter. There is no positive response from the respondents in this regard. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the petitions and both the petitions are dismissed at the time of admission. However, anything observed or said in the above-said judgment shall not effect the merits of the case at the time of trial. No order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******