JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This application filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 14.08.2006 passed by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack in I.C.C. No. 421 of 2006 taking cognizance under Sections 138 N.I. Act & Section 420 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint case against the Petitioners vide I.C.C. Case No. 421 of 2006. Opposite party No. 1 averred in the complaint petition that Petitioner No. 1 is a company and Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company and in order to expand the business of the company, they introduced a scheme that whoever deposits any amount and included in the said scheme would get double the amount deposited after expiry of three years from the date of deposit. Opposite party No. 1 invested Rs. 50, 000/-(fifty thousand) and included herself in the aforesaid scheme. Accordingly, an agreement was executed and a cheque double the amount deposited was also handed over the to her by the Petitioners. Subsequently, after completion of three years, when opposite party No. 1 wanted to deposit the cheque in the back, she was restrained by the Petitioners on some plea or other. Thereafter, on 11.02.2006, a Bank Draft amounting to Rs. 25, 000/- was handed over to her and the rest amount of Rs. 75, 000/- was promised to be paid within a short period. Ultimately, when the rest amount of Rs. 75, 000/- was not paid by the Petitioners as promised, within the stipulated period, opposite party No. 1 presented the cheque issued by the Petitioners at the State Bank of India and the cheque was dishonoured by the authorities of the said bank. Opposite party No. 1 also issued demand notice to the Petitioners and since the Petitioners did not pay the cheque amount even after receipt of the demand notice, she filed the aforesaid complaint case. After initial deposition of the complaint, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack was pleased to take cognizance under Sections 138 N.I. Act and 420 I.P.C. 3. Mr. Opposite party No. 1 also issued demand notice to the Petitioners and since the Petitioners did not pay the cheque amount even after receipt of the demand notice, she filed the aforesaid complaint case. After initial deposition of the complaint, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack was pleased to take cognizance under Sections 138 N.I. Act and 420 I.P.C. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act and Section 420 I.P.C. have not been fulfilled by the complainant (O.P. No. 1).O.P. No. 1 has described that at the relevant time Petitioner No. 2 was only looking after the affairs of Petitioner No. 1 which is a company and has not specifically stated that at the relevant time Petitioner No. 2 was in charge of Petitioner No. 1. therefore, Petitioner No. 2 can not be made liable for commission of offence u/s 138 N.I. Act and Section 420 I.P.C. and taking cognizance against him is bad in law. He further submitted that part payment has been made by Petitioner No. 1 by handing over a bank draft of Rs. 25, 000/- which opposite party No. 1 has also encashed later and, therefore, she was only entitled to the rest amount . As such, she is not entitled to be paid as demanded by her by presenting the aforesaid cheque in her bank. According to Mr. Mishra, the order of taking cognizance is illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 submitted that the manner in which opposite party No. 1 was cheated is well narrated by her in the initial statement, so also in the complaint petition, which is fully supported by the documents produced in the Court below and all the ingredients of Sections 141 and 142 N.I.Act have been fulfilled. As regards the commission of offence u/s 138 N.I. Act, the requirements of the said offence has been well substantiated by opposite party No. 1 through her pleadings in the complaint petition. The case was filed within the statutory period as required under the N.I. Act after complying with all the formalities.Two cheques amounting to Rs. 50, 000/- each were presented in the Bank but not a single cheque was honoured, indicating that there was no sufficient money in the account. The case was filed within the statutory period as required under the N.I. Act after complying with all the formalities.Two cheques amounting to Rs. 50, 000/- each were presented in the Bank but not a single cheque was honoured, indicating that there was no sufficient money in the account. He further submitted that all the materials are required to be proved only during the trial and at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is to be satisfied about existence of a prima facie case. He also submitted that law is well settled that inherent power cannot be exercised if there is no error of law. 5. Perused the record. It is the settled principle of law that at the stage of taking cognizance, the duty of the Court is to see whether all the ingredients have been fulfilled and prima facie case is there or not. At the trial of the case after considering the evidence adduced the Court may come to the conclusion whether Petitioner No. 2 was in charge of the conduct of the business or not. But at the stage of cognizance, the Court cannot come to the finding that Petitioner No. 2 is not responsible for the conduct of the business. Even if it be taken that the cheque in question was issued by Petitioner No. 2 in his capacity as the Managing Director of the company, he is liable in view of the provisions contained in Section 141 of the Act being the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. These are matters to be considered during trial. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the learned S.D.J.M. taking cognizance. 6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack. The Criminal Misc. Case is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.