Judgment R.S. Garg, J. : By this petition under Sec. 482 of the CrPC the petitioners seek to challenge the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1115 of 2003 on the ground that a case for prosecution of the applicants for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the present non-applicant M/s. Pannalal Kankariya & Sons filed a private complaint against the non-applicants submitting inter alia that the cheques were issued by the present applicant No. 1 under the signatures of the present applicant No. 2. On presentation of the same, they remained dishonored and despite notices, all the applicants refused to make the payment or did not make the payment right in time, they are liable to be convicted. The present applicants have filed the present petition for quashing the prosecution/charge levelled against them on the ground that on the facts stated in the application/complaint, an offence is not made out. 3. It is submitted by Shri Gupta that the present applicant No. 5 namely A.S. Gopinath tendered his resignation, with effect from 1.1.2001. The information was received in the office of the Registrar on 15.3.2002 and the cheques in dispute were issued under the signatures of the applicant No. 2 on 10.10.2002, therefore, the present applicant No. 5 cannot be prosecuted, he having demitted the office of the Director much before the issue of the cheques. 4. Shri Shah, learned counsel for the present non-applicant after going through the documents and the certified copy of the Form No. 32 issued by the concerned Registrar of the Companies, was unable to show that the present applicant No. 5 was a Director of the Company on 10.10.2002. As the present applicant No. 5 namely A.S. Gopinath had already demitted the office before issuance of the cheques, his prosecution would be absolutely illegal. The proceedings against the present applicant No. 5 are quashed. 5. For the applicant No. 3 Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal and applicant No. 4 A.S. Pandurangan, it is submitted that they are not signatories of the document/the cheque nor it is said that in the complaint nor any cogent evidence has been brought on record to show that these applicants are actively engaged in the business of the company. 6. 5. For the applicant No. 3 Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal and applicant No. 4 A.S. Pandurangan, it is submitted that they are not signatories of the document/the cheque nor it is said that in the complaint nor any cogent evidence has been brought on record to show that these applicants are actively engaged in the business of the company. 6. Shri Shah, learned counsel for the non-applicant after taking me through the documents, submitted that the applicant clearly mentioned in the complaint that the managing director and the other directors are actively engaged in the business and therefore they are necessary parties as accused. 7. I have gone through the complaint and the supporting evidence. There is a bald statement in the complaint that the accused No. 3 Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal, accused No. 4 A.S. Pandurangan and accused No. 5 A.S. Gopinath are actively engaged in the business of the company. The bald statement not supported by any other documents or evidence would not become the proof in support of the allegations. The simple allegation that a particular person is engaged in the business would not be sufficient but something more should have been brought on record to show that how the concerned accused persons are engaged in day-to-day business, conduction and the interest of the company. In absence of such evidence, I am unable to hold that prosecution of Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal and A.S. Pandurangan is valid. The proceedings against the said two persons namely Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal and A.S. Pandurangan are also quashed. 8. So far as cases of the applicant No. 1 M/s. K.A.S. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and K.A. Shanmugham are concerned, there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that Mr. K.A. Shanmugham in his capacity as. the Managing Director issued the cheque in dispute for and on behalf of the applicant No. 1, in favour of the respondents. Their prosecution in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of law. The application on behalf of applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 is allowed while on behalf of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed. 9. The Trial Court be informed accordingly.