ORDER: This revision has been filed against the order passed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.3977 of 2002 in C.C.No.1101 of 2001, dismissing the petition to drop proceedings against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A-4 and A-5 in the said Calendar Case on the ground that on the day of presentation of the alleged cheque, they ceased to be the Directors of the company, on whose behalf, the said cheque has been issued. 2. The circumstances under which, the order impugned had been passed is as follows: The complainant company, namely Upasana Finance, had lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A-4 and A-5 for offences under Secs.138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act along with three others. It may not be necessary for this Court to go deep into the details of the said complaint and for the purpose of disposing of this revision, suffice it to state that the complainant company had entered into a Consumer Durable Finance with the employees of the company, wherein the petitioners herein are discharging their duties as Directors under an undertaking that the company would deduct the Hire Purchase instalments of the employees and remit the same to the complainant company. Since the accused company failed to abide by the conditions of the agreement entered upon, the complainant company had resorted to the filing of a private complaint, which though pending-investigation, the accused in the meanwhile had approached the complainant company agreeing to remit the amount and in pursuant of the same had issued three cheques, each to the tune of Rs. 1,93,788 which on presentation returned unpaid with the endorsements as “funds insufficient” and “payment stopped by the Drawer”. Hence, after observing all the formalities, the prosecution had been launched for the above said offences. 3. The learned Magistrate after having taken cognizance of the offence had issued process to the accused. On receipt of summons, the accused entered appearance. The preliminary objection raised by the counsel before the Court below and this Court is that the first petitioner ceased to be the Director from 3.7.1999 and the second petitioner from 17.2.1999 and in support of the same had also filed certified copies of Form-32. On receipt of summons, the accused entered appearance. The preliminary objection raised by the counsel before the Court below and this Court is that the first petitioner ceased to be the Director from 3.7.1999 and the second petitioner from 17.2.1999 and in support of the same had also filed certified copies of Form-32. In effect, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is that on the date of presentation of the cheque, viz., on 13.11.2000, the petitioners were not in charge of the day to day affairs of the company. 4. Though there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel, but still, so long as the documents have not been marked in Court and established that it is a genuine document, the Court will not be justified in acting on it. 5. Answering to the above, the learned counsel would place his argument to the effect that it is a public document and therefore, it is admissible without the same being marked. 6. True, a public document is per se admissible, but it is the certified copy of the document and even though at this stage, the complainant company has not challenged the genuineness of the document, still, it is the duty of the Court to see whether such documents are genuine. There had been number of instances, where such certified copies are found to be a fabricated are forged one. Though this Court does not opine that the petitioners have indulged in such fabrication without any material, this Court is more concerned in seeing that the law and legal issues are being properly carried out. Therefore, in such circumstances, these documents cannot be straightaway taken into consideration without being duly marked and hence, I am not inclined to accept the above contention raised by the learned counsel. At any rate, it is open for the petitioners to establish the same during the course of trial. 7. However, it is pertinent to point out at this stage that of late frivolous complaints are being filed, especially in an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the tendency is to rope in as many accused as possible, in order to coerce them to come for a settlement. 7. However, it is pertinent to point out at this stage that of late frivolous complaints are being filed, especially in an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the tendency is to rope in as many accused as possible, in order to coerce them to come for a settlement. There may be instances where an accused may be a Director, but never had an occasion to do anything with the affairs of the company, but still a bald allegation will be written in the complaint stating that he is in charge of the day to day affairs of the company, which would be suffice for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. The Court is no doubt duty bound to see during the course of trial whether this averment, or allegation is substantiated. Merely saying that he is in charge of the company would not by itself be enough to warrant a conviction. There should be something more which should brought on record by the persons, or the company, which resort to the filing of the complaints. In such circumstances, if the complainant fails to do so, or in the alternative, the accused is able to show during the course of trial that he ceased to be the Director even before the commission of the offence, the Court should not be hesitant to take recourse to Sec.250, Crl.P.C. or award substantial costs, as the law permits. This, in my view, would definitely prevent the complainants who come forward in filing complaints with little material hand. 8. Finally, it has been represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are aged about 60 years and they are not maintaining good health and hence, their personal appearance may be dispensed with during the course of the trial. 9. On being satisfied about the status, I direct the Magistrate to condone the absence of the petitioners on their counsel filing a petition under Sec.205 of Crl.P.C. or Sec.317 of Crl.P.C, except on those days, when their presence is absolutely necessary, such as to receive copies, to answer the substance of charges, to answer the questioning under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C. and to receive judgment. With the above observations, this revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is closed.