JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Cr. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 105, 106, 107 and 108 of 2012 as common question of law is involved in all the petitions. The petitioners in the petitions have challenged summoning order u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act') and have also prayed quashing of complaints pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Kasauli. The Cr. MMO Nos., Complaint Nos. and summoning orders challenged in Cr. MMOs are as follows:- S. No. Cr. MMO No. Complaint No. Summoning order (i) 79 of 2012 16/3 of 2012 9.2.2012 (ii) 80 of 2012 15/3 of 2012 9.2.2012 (iii) 81 of 2012 16/3 of 2012 9.2.2012 (iv) 82 of 2012 15/3 of 2012 9.2.2012 (v) 105 of 2012 20/3 of 2012 16.2.2012 (vi) 106 of 2012 21/3 of 2012 16.2.2012 (vii) 107 of 2012 21/3 of 2012 16.2.2012 (viii) 108 of 2012 20/3 of 2012 16.2.2012 Cr. MMO Nos. 79 and 81 of 2012: Cr. MMO Nos. 79 and 81 of 2012 have arisen out of case No. 16/3 of 2012. It has been stated that petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Cr. MMO No. 79 of 2012 are Non-Executive Directors of Ganesh Benzoplast Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act'). The petitioner No.1 in Cr. MMO No. 81 of 2012 is a Company, registered under the Act, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Directors of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the Office-in-Charge of petitioner No.1. 2. It has been stated that Complaint No. 16/3 of 2012 has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act at Kasauli. The allegations are that the Company had placed an order to purchase Toluene from respondent which was supplied. In order to discharge the liability towards purchase of Toluene, the Company had issued two cheques bearing No. 022424 dated 24.5.2011 for Rs.10,83,259/- and cheque No.023079 dated 27.5.2011 for Rs.13,75,622/-. The cheques were drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai when presented by the respondent to its banker got dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The notice dated 19.12.2011 was served upon the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act but no payment was made. Thereafter respondent filed complaint u/s 138 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class summoned the petitioners on 9.2.2012. The cheques were drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai when presented by the respondent to its banker got dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The notice dated 19.12.2011 was served upon the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act but no payment was made. Thereafter respondent filed complaint u/s 138 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class summoned the petitioners on 9.2.2012. The petitioners in Cr. MMO No. 81 of 2012 instead of placing on record the copy of complaint in case No. 16/3 of 2012 have placed copy of complaint in case No.15/3 of 2012, but it makes no difference as copy of complaint in case No. 16/3 of 2012 has been placed on record in Cr. MMO No. 79 of 2012. 3. It has been stated that the Court at Kasauli has no jurisdiction, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kasauli Court. The presentation of cheque and issuance of notice from an area within the jurisdiction of Kasauli Court will not give jurisdiction to the Court at Kasauli for summoning the petitioners. The petitioners in Cr. MMO No. 79 of 2012 are Non-Executive Directors of the Company. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Cr. MMO No. 81 of 2012 are the Directors of the Company. There are no averments in the complaint in accordance with law that the Non-Executive Directors or the Directors of the Company are responsible for the administration, conduct, business affairs and day-to-day working of the Company. There is no legal material on record for summoning the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli has erred in summoning the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act. 4. Cr. MMO Nos. 80 and 82 of 2012: Cr. MMO Nos. 80 and 82 of 2012 have arisen out of case No. 15/3 of 2012. It has been stated that petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Cr. MMO No. 80 of 2012 are Non-Executive Directors of Ganesh Benzoplast Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act'). The petitioner No.1 in Cr. MMO No. 82 of 2012 is a Company, registered under the Act, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Directors of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the Office-in-Charge of petitioner No.1. 5. In Cr. MMO Nos. The petitioner No.1 in Cr. MMO No. 82 of 2012 is a Company, registered under the Act, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Directors of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the Office-in-Charge of petitioner No.1. 5. In Cr. MMO Nos. 80 and 82 of 2012 the grounds of challenge are same as in Cr. MMO Nos. 79 and 81 of 2012 respectively, but the cheques involved are cheque bearing No. 023081 dated 28.5.2011 for Rs.9,37,768/- and cheque No.023080 dated 28.5.2011 for Rs.10,90,844/- which were drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai when presented by the respondent to its banker got dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The notice dated 19.12.2011 was served upon the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act but no payment was made. The petitioners in Cr. MMO No. 82 of 2012 instead of placing on record the copy of complaint in case No. 15/3 of 2012 have placed copy of complaint in case No.16/3 of 2012, but it makes no difference as copy of complaint in case No. 15/3 of 2012 has been placed on record in Cr. MMO No. 80 of 2012. 6. Cr. MMO Nos. 105 and 108 of 2012: Cr. MMO Nos. 105 and 108 of 2012 have arisen out of case No. 20/3 of 2012. It has been stated that petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Cr. MMO No. 105 of 2012 are Non-Executive Directors of Ganesh Benzoplast Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act'). The petitioner No.1 in Cr. MMO No. 108 of 2012 is a Company, registered under the Act, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Directors of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the Office-in Charge of petitioner No.1. 7. In Cr. MMO Nos. 105 and 108 of 2012 the grounds of challenge are same as in Cr. MMOs No. 79 and 81 of 2012 respectively, but the cheques involved are cheque bearing No. 023219 dated 12.8.2011 for Rs.10,59,711/- and cheque No.023218 dated 9.8.2011 for Rs.10,53,604/- which were drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai when presented by the respondent to its banker got dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The notice dated 26.12.2011 was served upon the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act but no payment was made. 8. Cr. MMO Nos. 106 and 107 of 2012: Cr. MMO Nos. 106 and 107 of 2012 have arisen out of case No. 21/3 of 2012. The notice dated 26.12.2011 was served upon the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act but no payment was made. 8. Cr. MMO Nos. 106 and 107 of 2012: Cr. MMO Nos. 106 and 107 of 2012 have arisen out of case No. 21/3 of 2012. It has been stated that petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Cr. MMO No. 106 of 2012 are Non-Executive Directors of Ganesh Benzoplast Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act'). The petitioner No.1 in Cr. MMO No. 107 of 2012 is a Company, registered under the Act, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Directors of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the Office-in-Charge of petitioner No.1. 9. In Cr. MMO Nos. 106 and 107 of 2012 the grounds of challenge are same as in Cr. MMO Nos.80 and 82 of 2012 respectively, but the cheques involved are cheque bearing No. 023216 dated 8.8.2011 for Rs.10,66,983/- and cheque No.023217 dated 9.8.2011 for Rs.10,43,570/- which were drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai when presented by the respondent to its banker got dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The notice dated 16.12.2011 was served upon the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act but no payment was made. 10. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of complaints and affidavits of the complainant in support of the complaints Court at Kasauli has no jurisdiction to issue process against the petitioners u/s 138 of the Act. The petitioners in Cr. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 105 and 106 of 2012 are Non-Executive Directors of the Company. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Cr. MMO Nos. 81, 82, 107 and 108 of 2012 are the Directors of petitioner No.1-Company in the said Cr. MMOs. There are no averments in the complaints in accordance with law that Non-Executive Directors and Directors of the Company are responsible for administration, conduct, business affairs and day-to-day working of the Company. The allegations are general. The learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in summoning the petitioners in Cr. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 105 and 106 of 2012 and petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Cr. MMO Nos. 81, 82, 107 and 108 of 2012 as Directors of the Company. It has been submitted that material was allegedly supplied from Mumbai to Boisar, the cheques were given at Mumbai. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 105 and 106 of 2012 and petitioners No. 2 and 3 in Cr. MMO Nos. 81, 82, 107 and 108 of 2012 as Directors of the Company. It has been submitted that material was allegedly supplied from Mumbai to Boisar, the cheques were given at Mumbai. The presentation of the cheques at Parwanoo, notice of demand from Kasauli after dishonouring of the cheques will not give jurisdiction to the Court at Kasauli to summon the petitioners u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the Act. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order in each petition and has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly summoned the petitioners. The complaints filed by the respondent are legal. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for quashing of the complaints. 12. In K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510 , the Supreme Court has held as follows:- 14. The offence u/s 138 of the Act can be completed only with the con-catenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence u/s 138 of the Act. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below : 178.(a)- (c ) xxx (d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 16. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below : 178.(a)- (c ) xxx (d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence u/s 138 of the Act. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied photocopy of judgment dated 21.9.2011 of Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. No. 1056/2011 Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd. & Ors. vs. Destination of the World (Subcontinent) Private Ltd. The learned Single Judge has concluded that in K. Bhaskaran observations in paras 15 and 16 are an obiter as it is not 5 places where the 5 acts constituting an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act can possibly be performed. The acts can be performed, only at 4 places. The act No. 2 and act No. 3 in K. Bhaskaran related to only one place i.e. a place where drawee bank is located. 14. In K. Bhaskaran in para 15, the Supreme Court has observed it is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated as the same locality. In para 16, the Supreme Court has again stated thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. In para 16, the Supreme Court has again stated thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. In K. Bhaskaran in the presence of the conclusion of the Supreme Court identifying 5 places in para 14, it is not possible to accept the view in Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd. that acts can be performed only at 4 places, act No. 2 and act No. 3 relate to only one place i.e. the place where the drawee bank is located. 15. In Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd. & Ors. (supra) it has also been held as under:- Before concluding I would be failing not to lodge a caveat. With electronic banking and facility payable at par of clearance provided by bankers and especially in metropolitan cities, where cheques are cleared by not being presented to the drawee bank but at nodal branches of the concerned banks, the subject matter of jurisdiction may have to be decided keeping in view that the drawee bank has created an agency where the cheque in question is transmitted for clearance and the situs where the clearance takes place would then arguably become the place where the cheque would be required to be treated as presented to 'the bank' i.e. the drawee bank. But, in such circumstances, properly constituted pleadings have to be found in a complaint and lodging the caveat, I leave it at that for the debate to be properly argued in an appropriate case with the necessary relevant pleadings. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs. Jayaswals NECO Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 609 . In that case, the following questions were before the Supreme Court : (a) What is meant by, "the bank" as mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ? (b) Does such bank mean the bank of the drawer of the cheque or covers within its ambit any bank including the collecting bank of the payee of the cheque? (c) To which bank the cheque is to be presented for the purposes of attracting the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Act? (b) Does such bank mean the bank of the drawer of the cheque or covers within its ambit any bank including the collecting bank of the payee of the cheque? (c) To which bank the cheque is to be presented for the purposes of attracting the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Act? The Supreme Court has observed that some High Courts have held that cheque must be presented to the bank on which it is drawn within six months from the date of issue of the cheque and some High Courts have taken the view that cheque can be presented either in the payee's bank or in the drawer's bank and the date of presentation of the respective banks will be reckoned for calculating the period of six months from the date it was drawn. The first view has been taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court and Gujarat High Court. The second view has been taken by Madras High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court has held as follows:- "The Bank" referred to in clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favour the cheque is issued. The Supreme Court continued: It however, does not mean that the cheque is always to be presented to the drawer's bank on which the cheque is issued. The payee of the cheque has the option to present the cheque in any bank including the collecting bank where he has his account but to attract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque such collecting bank is obliged to present the cheque in the drawee or payee bank on which the cheque is drawn within the period of six months from the date on which it is shown to have been issued.... The Supreme Court further observed: The non-presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank within the period specified in the Section would absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability u/s 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise may be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. The Supreme Court further observed: The non-presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank within the period specified in the Section would absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability u/s 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise may be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. A combined reading of Sections 3, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee. In Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. (supra) the term "the bank" mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act has been interpreted in the light of questions (b) and (c ), noticed in the judgment for counting the period of six months for presentation of the cheque to "the bank". 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 658 , the Supreme Court has held as follows:- 35. In Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs. Yashpal Singh and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 417 , we may, however, notice that it was held that for securing conviction under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the facts which are required to be proved are: (a) that the cheque was drawn for payment of an amount of money for discharge of a debt/liability and the cheque was dishonoured; (b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period; (c) that the payment made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period; and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 36. For the purpose of proving the aforementioned ingredients of the offence u/s 138 of the Act, the complainant-appellant was required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor none of which arose within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. 36. For the purpose of proving the aforementioned ingredients of the offence u/s 138 of the Act, the complainant-appellant was required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor none of which arose within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. It is, apt to mention that In Prem Chand Vijay Kumar (supra) this Court held that cause of action within the meaning of Section 142 (b) of the Act can arise only once. 18. Harman Electronics Private Limited and another vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 610 has also been relied on behalf of the petitioners. In that case, the complainant issued a notice from Delhi upon the accused asking him to pay the amount. The notice was served upon the accused at Chandigarh. The complaint was filed at Delhi. The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint. The matter was taken to High Court where criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed. In the Supreme Court a contention was raised that Court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as the entire cause of action arose at Chandigarh. The Supreme Court held as follows:- It is one thing to say that sending of a notice is one of the ingredients for maintaining the complaint but it is another thing to say that dishonour of a cheque by itself constitutes an offence. For the purpose of proving its case that the accused had committed an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the ingredients thereof are required to be proved. What would constitute an offence is stated in the main provision. The proviso appended thereto, however, imposes certain further conditions which are required to be fulfilled before cognizance of the offence can be taken. If the ingredients for constitution of the offence laid down in the provisos (a), (b) and (c) appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are intended to be applied in favour of the accused, there cannot be any doubt that receipt of a notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of action for filing a complaint. As it is only on receipt of the notice that the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. As it is only on receipt of the notice that the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. 19. The Supreme Court in Mrs. Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr., 2011 (3) S.L.J. (SC) 1561 has held as follow:- This Court has repeatedly held that in case of a Director, complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner the Director was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for conduct of its business and mere bald statement that he or she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient. [Vide National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another, (2010) 3 SCC 330 . In the case on hand, particularly, in para 4 of the complaint, except the mere bald and cursory statement with regard to the appellant, the complainant has not specified her role in the day to day affairs of the Company. We have verified the averments as regard to the same and we agree with the contention of Mr. Akhil Sibal that except reproduction of the statutory requirements the complainant has not specified or elaborated the role of the appellant in the day to day affairs of the Company. On this ground also, the appellant is entitled to succeed. The Supreme Court has also observed that the High Court, in the light of the acceptable materials such as certified copy of annual return dated 30.9.1999 and Form 32 ought to have exercised its jurisdiction u/s 482 and quashed the criminal proceedings. 20. In Cr. MMO No. 162 of 2011 decided on 5.12.2011 Smt. Bhavna Mukesh Ojha vs. Bhup Singh reported in Latest HLJ 2012 (HP) 1, the facts were that the respondent had filed complaint u/s 138 of the Act against petitioner at Shimla. The cheque in question was allegedly drawn on petitioner's bank i.e. Bank of India, Mazgaon Branch, Mumbai. The cheque was dishonoured by petitioner's bank at Mazgaon, Mumbai. The contention was that mere presentation of cheque at Shimla could not give rise to cause of action at Shimla. The cheque in question was allegedly drawn on petitioner's bank i.e. Bank of India, Mazgaon Branch, Mumbai. The cheque was dishonoured by petitioner's bank at Mazgaon, Mumbai. The contention was that mere presentation of cheque at Shimla could not give rise to cause of action at Shimla. The Sections 179, 180 of the Code were noticed in the judgment. It has been held as follows:- The respondent had deposited the cheque in question for collection to his banker at Shimla. The cheque in question was returned to respondent through his banker after dishonour at Shimla. The return of cheque after dishonour has direct relation for completion of commission of offence u/s 138 of the Act. The court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where cheque has been returned after bouncing shall have also territorial jurisdiction to try complaint for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. In the complaint necessary averments regarding territorial jurisdiction of Shimla court have been pleaded. Therefore, Shimla court has jurisdiction to try the complaint. There is no merit in the petition. The Special Leave to Appeal CRIML No. 48/2012 against judgment in Cr. MMO No. 162 of 2011 Bhavna Mukesh Ojha vs. Bhup Singh has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.1.2012. 21. The cheques in question were presented for collection by the respondent/complainant at Parwanoo, the communications of dishonouring the cheques were given at Parwanoo. The material (Toluene) was supplied by the respondent from Mumbai to Boisar. The respondent has a unit at Village Ambota, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The registered office of the respondent is in Mumbai. In the complaints, it has been stated that during the regular business transactions accused ordered to purchase Toluene from complainant-Company. In the complaints, it has also been stated that in order to discharge the liability of the price of items purchased the accused issued cheques in favour of the complainant-Company. The petitioners in the petitions have stated that cheques were issued in Mumbai but have not stated where the cheques were handed over to the complainant-Company. The petitioners have also not stated where they had placed the order to respondent-Company for supplying Toluene. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaints and preliminary evidence, the Court at Kasauli has no jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 138 of the Act. 22. The petitioners have also not stated where they had placed the order to respondent-Company for supplying Toluene. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaints and preliminary evidence, the Court at Kasauli has no jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 138 of the Act. 22. In the complaint it has been stated that Nalinakshan Kolangaradath, Gyan Chordia, Rishi Ramesh Pilani and Raunak Ramakant Pilani being Directors of the accused-Company are the persons responsible for the administration, conduct, business affairs of accused M/s Ganesh Benzoplast Limited. It has been stated that complainant had presented the cheques to his banker Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo which were dishonoured being 'insufficient funds'. It is the contention of the petitioners that Nalinakshan Kolangaradath, Gyan Chordia are the Non-Executive Directors, whereas Rishi Ramesh Pilani and Raunak Ramakant Pilani are the Directors of M/s Ganesh Benzoplast Limited and Ramakant Pillai is Office-in-Charge of the Company. 23. The Supreme Court in Mrs. Anita Malhotra (supra) has held that in case of a Director, complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner the Director was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for conduct of its business and mere bald statement that he or she was incharge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient. In the complaints, the respondent has pleaded that Nalinakshan Kolangaradath, Gyan Chordia, Rishi Ramesh Pilani and Raunak Ramakant Pilani being Directors of accused-Company are the persons responsible for the administration, conduct, business affairs of the accused-Company. This is not sufficient pleadings to proceed against the Directors of the Company as an accused u/s 138 of the Act in the light of observations of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Anita Malhotra (supra). The respondent has not specified the role of Directors in the day-to-day affairs of the Company. The pleadings for proceeding against Nalinakshan Kolangaradath, Gyan Chordia, Rishi Ramesh Pilani and Raunak Ramakant Pilani as an accused u/s 138 of the Act as Directors of the accused-Company are not sufficient. The case of Ramakant Pillai petitioner is different. He is the Office-in-Charge of the accused-Company and has allegedly signed the cheques. In view of above, Cr. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 105, 106, 107 and 108 of 2012 are partly allowed, the Criminal Complaint Nos. The case of Ramakant Pillai petitioner is different. He is the Office-in-Charge of the accused-Company and has allegedly signed the cheques. In view of above, Cr. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 105, 106, 107 and 108 of 2012 are partly allowed, the Criminal Complaint Nos. 15/3 of 2012, 16/3 of 2012, 20/3 of 2012 and 21/3 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (2), Kasauli only against Nalinakshana Kolangardath, Gyan Chordia, Rishi Ramesh Pilani and Raunak Ramakant Pilani are quashed. The remaining prayers in Cr. MMO Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 105, 106, 107 and 108 of 2012 are rejected. In all complaints Ramakant Pilani alias Ramakant Pillai, Office-in-Charge, M/s Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. petitioners and respondent M/s Avron Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. through their counsel are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.(2), Kasauli on 30.8.2012. All pending applications are also disposed of.