JUDGMENT The petitioners in these three petitions under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] are common. Furthermore, except the number and dates of the instruments/cheques in question, most of the relevant factual details in these three petitions are also common. The respondent No.2, which is a partnership firm, is also common in all three petitions. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents are also common and they have made common submissions for all three petitions. Therefore, all three petitions are decided by this Common Order. 2. In Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012, the petitioners – directors have prayed, inter alia, that:-“7(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the process issued against the petitioners U/s. 138 and 141 of N.I. Act in Criminal Case No.358 of 2012 pending before the Ld. 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Court, Kapadvanj” 2.1 In Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012, the applicant – director has prayed, inter alia, that:-“7(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the process issued against the petitioner U/s. 138 of N.I. Act in Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 pending before the Ld. 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Court, Kapadvanj” 2.2 In Criminal Misc. Application No.3920 of 2012, the petitioners – directors have prayed, inter alia, that:-“7(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the process issued against the petitioners U/s. 138 and 141 of N.I. Act in Criminal Case No.357 of 2012 pending before the Ld. 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Court, Kapadvanj” FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 3. So far as Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012 is concerned, it arises from Criminal Case No.358 of 2011 filed by the respondent – partnership firm alleging inter alia that the instrument/cheque No.349564 dated 9.8.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,02,950-00 was drawn by the accused persons, i.e. petitioners of Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012, on company's account No.1725340946 with Central Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that the said cheque was signed by accused No.3, i.e. the applicant No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012. Application No.3917 of 2012, on company's account No.1725340946 with Central Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that the said cheque was signed by accused No.3, i.e. the applicant No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012. The complainant, i.e. present respondent, also alleged that the said cheque was issued by the petitioners in discharge of their debt which arose on account of certain commercial/business transactions entered into between the applicant No.1 company and the respondent – partnership firm. The complainant also alleged that when it presented the said cheque in its account on 23.12.2011 for realization, it was returned dishonoured by the concerned Bank with remark “insufficient fund”. The petitioners also alleged that on receipt of the banker's advice, the complainant served statutory notice dated 21.1.2012 under Section 138 r.w. Section 141 of the Act to the present petitioners, however, despite the said notice, the petitioners did not make payment and that therefore, it was constrained to file Criminal Case No.358 of 2011. The complainant – respondent alleged that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 being the directors, are arraigned as accused in the said criminal case. 3.1 So far as Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012 is concerned, it arises from Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 filed by the respondent – partnership firm alleging inter alia that the instrument/cheque No.179907 dated 27.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,02,950-00 was drawn by the accused persons, i.e. petitioners of Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012, on company's account No.000405025458 with ICICI Bank Ltd. Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that the said cheque was signed by accused No.1, i.e. the applicant No.1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012. The complainant, i.e. present respondent, also alleged that the said cheque was issued by the applicant in discharge of their debt which arose on account of certain commercial/business transactions entered into between the applicant No.1 company and the respondent – partnership firm. The complainant also alleged that when it presented the said cheque in its account on 19.10.2011 for realization, it was returned dishonoured by the concerned Bank with remark “funds insufficient”. The complainant also alleged that when it presented the said cheque in its account on 19.10.2011 for realization, it was returned dishonoured by the concerned Bank with remark “funds insufficient”. The applicant also alleged that on receipt of banker's advice, the complainant served statutory notice dated 9.11.2011 under Section 138 r.w. Section 141 of the Act to the present petitioners, however, despite the said notice, the applicant did not make payment and that therefore, it was constrained to file Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011. The complainant – respondent alleged that the accused being the director, is arraigned as accused in said criminal case. 3.2 So far as Criminal Misc. Application No.3920 of 2012 is concerned, it arises from Criminal Case No.357 of 2012 filed by the respondent – partnership firm alleging inter alia that the instrument/cheque No.349566 dated 9.9.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,02,950-00 was drawn by the accused persons, i.e. petitioners of Criminal Misc. Application No.3920 of 2012, on company's account No.1725340946 with Central Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that the said cheque was signed by accused No.3, i.e. the applicant No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3920 of 2012. The complainant, i.e. present respondent, also alleged that the said cheque was issued by the petitioners in discharge of their debt which arose on account of certain commercial/business transactions entered into between the applicant No.1 company and the respondent – partnership firm. The complainant also alleged that when it presented the said cheque for realization on 30.12.2011, it was returned dishonoured by the concerned Bank with remark “insufficient fund”. The petitioners also alleged that on receipt of banker's advice, the complainant had served statutory notice dated 27.1.2012 under Section 138 r.w. Section 141 of the Act to the present petitioners, however, despite the said notice, the petitioners did not make payment and that therefore, it was constrained to file Criminal Case No.357 of 2011. The complainant – respondent alleged that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 being the directors, are arraigned as accused in said criminal case. 4. The petitioners of all three petitions have prayed that the said three criminal cases and the related proceedings may be quashed. The grounds on which, the petitioners have challenged the said proceedings are almost common for all three petitions. 5. Ms. Shah, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioners, Mr. 4. The petitioners of all three petitions have prayed that the said three criminal cases and the related proceedings may be quashed. The grounds on which, the petitioners have challenged the said proceedings are almost common for all three petitions. 5. Ms. Shah, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioners, Mr. Patel, learned advocate, has appeared for the private respondent – complainant and Mr. Pandya, learned APP, has appeared for the respondent No.1 – State. 5.1 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent – complaint and also examined the material on record. 6. Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, reiterated the above mentioned factual details. The petitioners have, essentially, challenged the criminal cases and their maintainability on the ground that; (a) since the company is not impleaded as accused, the complaint/s is/are not maintainable; and (b) the accused persons who are not signatory to the cheque in question, could not have been impleded and the criminal cases qua the said accused directors are not maintainable; and (c) any allegation or averment to demonstrate as to how the accused directors are responsible for day to day activities of the company and for conduct of business and affairs of the company are not made in the complaints or in the statutory notices and therefore also, the cases are not maintainable against the accused directors. 6.1 The learned counsel for the petitioners clarified that the ground/contention at Sr.No.(b) and (c) above are not raised so far as the director who has signed the cheque/s in question is concerned. 7. The respondents have opposed present petitions and it is claimed that the notice as well as the complaint contain correct, necessary and appropriate details and averments which support and justify the criminal cases as well as the maintainability of the cases against the accused persons, who are impleaded therein. Learned counsel for the private respondent has relied on the details mentioned in the complaint and claimed that the said details are sufficient to establish that the three directors – accused persons are responsible for the affairs of the company and that therefore, the complaints may not be quashed, at this stage. Learned counsel for the private respondent has relied on the details mentioned in the complaint and claimed that the said details are sufficient to establish that the three directors – accused persons are responsible for the affairs of the company and that therefore, the complaints may not be quashed, at this stage. He also claimed that whether the said three directors are in-charge of day to day activities of the company and responsible for the conduct of business and affairs of the company is a matter of evidence during the trial and that therefore, the complaints may not be quashed, at this stage. The respondents have not filed any affidavit opposing present application, but have relied on the details mentioned in the complaint and the statutory notices under Section 138 of the Act. 8. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention that almost similar allegations and averments have been made in all three criminal cases before the trial Court. 8.1 In view of form and contents of the complaints /criminal cases and the petitioner's defence, it is vital to examine, and take into account, the cause – title of the complaints/criminal cases and the description of the accused in each said three cases. 8.2 So far as Criminal Case No.358 of 2011 is concerned, the complainant has impleaded the accused persons (in the cause title of the complaint) in below mentioned manner:- “Accused Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited's authorized managing director 1. Shri Vinodkumar Nayar, 2. R. Ajit, Director of Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited. 3. Ashok N. Rav, Director of Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited.” 8.3 So far as Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 is concerned, the complainant has impleaded the accused person (in the cause title of the complaint) in below mentioned manner:- “Accused – Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited's authorized director Shri Vinodkumar Nayar” 8.4 So far as Criminal Case No.357 of 2011 is concerned, the complainant has impleaded the accused persons (in the cause title of the complaint) in below mentioned manner:- “Accused – Authorized Managing Director of Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited. 1. Shri Vinodkumar Nayar, 2. R. Ajit, Director of Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited. 3. 1. Shri Vinodkumar Nayar, 2. R. Ajit, Director of Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited. 3. Ashok N. Rav, Director of Shri Chakra Udhyog Limited.” 8.5 On this count, it is relevant to note that the transaction/s in question was/were between the partnership firm and the company, which is registered and incorporated as Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 8.6 It is also claimed that though the complainant – respondent was aware and conscious about the said aspect and though the proceedings have been filed under Section 138 r.w. Section 141 of the Act, the company is not impleaded as accused in the said proceedings. 9. So far as Criminal Case No.357 of 2011 and Criminal Case No.358 of 2011 are concerned, it is claimed that the cheque in question is signed by accused No.3, i.e. applicant No.3 in Criminal Misc. Applications No.3920 of 2012 and 3917 of 2012, and that therefore, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 in present two applications being Criminal Misc. Applications No.3920 of 2012 and 3917 of 2012, could not have been and ought not have been impleded as accused in the said proceedings because according to the petitioners, the said accused are not connected with the administration and business of the company and any allegation are not made against the said accused that the said accused were in-charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business and affairs of the company. 9.1 So far as Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 is concerned, the said case has been filed against only one director, who according to the petitioners, is not signatory to the cheque and any averment claiming as to how the said director is responsible for day to day activities and conduct of business of the company is also not made. 9.2 It is also contended by petitioners that the complainant has not impleded the company as accused in the two criminal cases though the complaint is filed under Section 138 and Section 141 of the Act and that therefore, the entire proceedings ought to be quashed and set aside. 9.3 In the third criminal case, the complainant, according to the petitioner of Criminal Misc. 9.3 In the third criminal case, the complainant, according to the petitioner of Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012, has made incorrect allegations inasmuch as, it is alleged that the accused director in the said Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 had signed the cheque in question, whereas in other two criminal cases, the same complainant has alleged, with reference to the same signature that the said signature is of the third director i.e. accused No.3 in Criminal Case Nos.357 of 2011 and 358 of 2011. 10. Besides the contention and the controversy as to whether the averments made in the complaint are sufficient to maintain the cases against the said three accused – directors or not and whether the said averments demonstrate as to whether the said three accused persons are in-charge of and responsible for company's business and affairs or not, the fact remains that so far as the cheques in question are concerned, present applicant Nos.1 and 2 are not signatory to the said cheques. 11. The petitioners herein have, in present petitions, categorically averred that the signature in all three cheques is that of present applicant No.3. 11.1 Actually, in two out of three cases, i.e. Criminal Case Nos.358 of 2011 and 357 of 2011, even the complainant himself has mentioned in his complaints that the signature on the cheques in question is that of accused No.3. 12. Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that so far as the accused No.1 and accused No.2 (i.e. so far as present applicants No.1 and 2) in the two Criminal Cases No.357 of 2011 and 358 of 2011 are concerned, they are not signatory to the cheques in question in those two cases and that therefore, unless there is any other material and specific allegations against the said two accused claiming that at the relevant time the said two accused were in charge of and responsible for day to day activities of the company and conduct of company's business and affairs, the complainant is not justified in impleading the said two accused persons and maintaining the complaints against them. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention that so far as Criminal Misc. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention that so far as Criminal Misc. Application No.3919/2012 (i.e. Criminal Case No.3772/2011) is concerned, accused No.1 in the other two cases (i.e. Criminal Case No.357/2011 and Criminal Case No.358/2011) is impleaded as the accused in the said Criminal Case No.3772/2011) and initially, the respondent had submitted that signature in the cheque in question in the said Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is that of the applicant in the third application, i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.3919/2012. 14. The said allegation was disputed by the applicant and he claimed that with reference to the same signature in other two criminal cases filed by the same complainant, it was alleged by the complainant that the signature is of accused No.3 in the said two cases, i.e. of the accused No.3 in Criminal Case No.357/2011 and in Criminal Case No.358/2011 and not of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.3919/2012. Learned advocate for the applicants had confronted the complainant's averments made in other two complaints, i.e. Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011. 14.1 However, subsequently, learned advocate for the respondent, upon taking instructions from his client, fairly considered to the fact that the signature in the cheque in question is not of the accused in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 (i.e. the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.3919/2012, but the said signature in the cheque in question in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is of accused No.3 in other two criminal cases, i.e. Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011. 14.2 In view of the said submission, clarification and admission by learned advocate for the respondent, it has become clear and undisputed position that the accused in Criminal Case No.3772/2011, i.e. the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.3919/2012 is not signatory to the cheque in question in Criminal Case No.3772/2011. 15. Before proceeding further, another similar clarification is also required to be mentioned at this stage. 15.1 During initial stage of hearing, it was alleged and contended by learned advocate for the respondent that original accused No.2 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2012 and 358/2012 is Managing Director of the company. 15.2 The said allegation was also disputed by learned advocate for the accused persons, i.e. present applicants in the present three applications. 15.1 During initial stage of hearing, it was alleged and contended by learned advocate for the respondent that original accused No.2 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2012 and 358/2012 is Managing Director of the company. 15.2 The said allegation was also disputed by learned advocate for the accused persons, i.e. present applicants in the present three applications. 15.3 In this context, it is necessary and relevant to mention that subsequently, during the hearing, learned advocate for the respondent has accepted, stipulated and conceded to the fact that the three accused persons in three criminal cases are ordinary Directors of the company and none of the three accused persons are Managing Director in the company. 16. In view of the said clarification, stipulation and admission by learned advocate for the respondent, now undisputed position has emerged that three accused persons are ordinary Directors of the company and none of the three accused persons is Managing Director in the company and that it is the accused No.3 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2012 and 358/2012 who is signatory to all cheques in question, i.e. cheques in question in Criminal Case Nos.357/2012, 358/2012 and 3772/2011. 17. In view of the aforesaid clear position which has emerged during hearing of the applications, the criminal cases against which present applications are preferred, are required to be considered. Thus, the above-mentioned three cases are required to be considered in light of the undisputed position that – (a) none of the accused persons in all three cases is Managing Director of the company in question and all accused persons are ordinary Directors in the company; (b) the accused in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is not the signatory to the cheque in question in the said criminal case; (c) all cheques in all three criminal cases are signed and issued by accused No.3 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2012 and 358/2012. 18. In this background, learned advocate for the applicants has raised objection against criminal cases on the ground that though the complainant has filed the complaint under section 138 read with section 141 of the Act and despite the fact that the accused persons in all criminal cases are ordinary Directors, any allegation that all accused persons or any one or more amongst them is/are concerned with and in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day activities of the company and the conduct of the business and affairs of the company. It is claimed by learned advocate for the applicants that in view of the absence of such assertion and in view of any detail demonstrating as to how any accused person from amongst them is responsible for day-to-day activities of the company or conduct of affairs and business of the company, the said three criminal cases are not maintainable. 18.1 Of course, learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the said contention and he has submitted that the averments and allegations made in the complaint are sufficient and the complainant has averred that the accused persons are responsible for day-to-day activities of the company or conduct of affairs and business of the company. 18.2 However, when the complaints (i.e. Criminal Case Nos.357/2011, 358/2011 and 3772/2011) filed by the applicants are examined, it emerges that said three complaints/criminal cases are bereft of any allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 so far as Criminal Cases No.357/2011 and 358/2011 are concerned and the accused person in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is concerned. As mentioned earlier, the complainant has alleged that accused No.3 (in Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011) has signed and issued the cheques in question in the three criminal cases. 18.3 Thus, according to the complainant, only petitioner No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.3917/2012 and 3920/2012, i.e. accused No.3 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011, is the signatory to the cheques in question and he has issued the cheques in question. 18.4 Hence, in view of the provisions contained under section 138 of the Act, when accused No.3 in Criminal Case No.357/2011 and Criminal Case No.358/2011 has undisputedly signed and issued the cheques in question, wherein he is a Director and also authorised person to sign and issue the cheque, then any other averments (necessary to invoke section 141 of the Act) would not be required so far as accused No.3 in the said two Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011 is concerned. 19. On the other hand, so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011 (i.e. applicant Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Misc. 19. On the other hand, so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2011 and 358/2011 (i.e. applicant Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.3917/2012 and 3920/2012) are concerned, it is an undisputed position that – (a) the said two Directors are not Managing Directors of the company and they are ordinary Directors of the company; and (b) they have not signed and issued the cheques in question; and (c) against them, the criminal proceedings are instituted by invoking provisions contained under section 141 of the Act, i.e. by invoking principle of vicarious liability; and (d) despite such being the factual position, any specific allegations and averments with reference to the said two persons, i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Case Nos.357/2012 and 358/2012 are not made in the said two criminal cases/complaints. 19.1 On this count, it is appropriate to take into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla [ (2005) 8 SCC 89 ], which reads thus: “8. The officers responsible for conducting affairs of companies are generally referred to as Directors, Managers, Secretaries, Managing Directors etc. What is required to be considered is: is it sufficient to simply state in a complaint that a particular person was a director of the Company at the time the offence was committed and nothing more is required to be said? For this, it may be worthwhile to notice the role of a director in a company. The word 'director' is defined in Section 2 (13) of the Companies Act, 1956 as under: “2. (13) 'director' includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called ;” There is a whole chapter in the Companies Act on directors, which is Chapter II. Sections 291 to 293 refer to powers of Board of Directors. A perusal of these provisions shows that what a Board of Directors is empowered to do in relation to a particular company depends upon the role and functions assigned to Directors as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company. There is nothing which suggests that simply by being a director in a Company, one is supposed to discharge particular functions on behalf of a company. There is nothing which suggests that simply by being a director in a Company, one is supposed to discharge particular functions on behalf of a company. It happens that a person may be a director in a company but he may not know anything about day-to-day functioning of the company. As a director he may be attending meetings of the Board of Directors of the Company where usually they decide policy matters and guide the course of business of a company. It may be that a Board of Directors may appoint sub-committees consisting of one or two directors out of the Board of the Company who may be made responsible for day-to-day functions of the Company. These are matters which form part of resolutions of Board of Directors of a Company. Nothing is oral. What emerges from this is that the role of a director in a company is a question of fact depending on the peculiar facts in each case. There is no universal rule that a director of a company is in charge of its everyday affairs. We have discussed about the position of a Director in a company in order to illustrate the point that there is no magic as such in a particular word, be it Director, Manager or Secretary. It all depends upon respective roles assigned to the officers in a company. A company may have Managers or Secretaries for different departments, which means, it may have more than one Manager or Secretary. These officers may also be authorised to issue cheques under their signatures with respect to affairs of their respective departments. Will it be possible to prosecute a Secretary of Department-B regarding a cheque issued by the Secretary of Department-A which is dishonoured? The Secretary of Department-B may not be knowing anything about issuance of the cheque in question. Therefore, mere use of a particular designation of an officer without more, may not be enough by way of an averment in a complaint. When the requirement in Section 141, which extends the liability to officers of a company, is that such a person should be in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company, how can a person be subjected to liability of criminal prosecution without it being averred in the complaint that he satisfies those requirements ? Not every person connected with a Compnay is made liable under Section 141. Liability is cast on persons who may have something to do with the transaction complained of. A person who is in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of a Company would naturally know why the cheque in question was issued and why it got dishonoured. 10. While analysing Section 141 of the Act, it will be seen that it operates in cases where an offence under Section 138 is committed by a company. The key words which occur in the Section are "every person". These are general words and take every person connected with a company within their sweep. Therefore, these words have been rightly qualified by use of the words "who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence etc." What is required is that the persons who are sought to be made criminally liable under Section 141 should be at the time the offence was committed, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. It is only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the time of commission of an offence, who will be liable for criminal action. It follows from this that if a director of a Company who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable under the provision. The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. Conversely, a person not holding any office or designation in a Company may be liable if he satisfies the main requirement of being in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of a Company at the relevant time. Conversely, a person not holding any office or designation in a Company may be liable if he satisfies the main requirement of being in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of a Company at the relevant time. Liability depends on the role one plays in the affairs of a Company and not on designation or status. If being a Director or Manager or Secretary was enough to cast criminal liability, the Section would have said so. Instead of "every person" the section would have said "every Director, Manager or Secretary in a Company is liable" etc. The legislature is aware that it is a case of criminal liability which means serious consequences so far as the person sought to be made liable is concerned. Therefore, only persons who can be said to be connected with the commission of a crime at the relevant time have been subjected to action. 11. A reference to sub-section (2) of Section 141 fortifies the above reasoning because sub-section (2) envisages direct involvement of any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of a company in commission of an offence. This section operates when in a trial it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance or is attributable to neglect on the part of any of the holders of these offices in a company. In such a case, such persons are to be held liable. Provision has been made for Directors, Managers, Secretaries and other officers of a company to cover them in cases of their proved involvement. 12. The conclusion is inevitable that the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company. Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable. 18. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a persons can be subjected to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a Company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a Company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That respondent falls within parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within Section 141 he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial. 19. In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the Reference are as under: (a) It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (b) The answer to question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases. (c) The answer to question (c) has to be in affirmative. The question notes that the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub-section (2) of Section 141.” 19.2 Subsequently in 2007, Hon'ble Apex Court again considered the said aspect and observed in paragraph Nos.16, 18, 19 and 20 of the decision in case between S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla [ (2007) 4 SCC 70 ] that: “16. Section 141 of the Act does not say that a Director of a Company shall automatically be vicariously liable for commission of an offence on behalf of the Company. What is necessary is that sufficient averments should be made to show that the person who is sought to be proceeded against on the premise of his being vicariously liable for commission of an offence by the Company must be incharge and shall also be responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. 18. Referring to this Court's earlier decisions in K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. [ (2001) 10 SCC 218 ] and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2004) 7 SCC 15], it was stated: "18. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected to criminal process. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within Section 141, he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non-director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial." 19. In terms of Section 138 of the Act, a complaint petition alleging an offence thereto must demonstrate that the following ingredients exist that: (i) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) but, it was dishonoured; (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable; and (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. 20. The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. Only because Respondent No. 1 herein was a party to a purported resolution dated 15.02.1995 by itself does not lead to an inference that she was actively associated with the management of the affairs of the Company. 20. The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. Only because Respondent No. 1 herein was a party to a purported resolution dated 15.02.1995 by itself does not lead to an inference that she was actively associated with the management of the affairs of the Company. This Court in this case has categorically held that there may be a large number of Directors but some of them may not associate themselves in the management of the day to day affairs of the Company and, thus, are not responsible for conduct of the business of the Company. The averments must state that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Requirements laid down therein must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. When a legal fiction is raised, the ingredients therefor must be satisfied.” 19.3 Thereafter in 2010, Hon'ble Apex Court observed, in the decision the case between National Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal [ (2010) 3 SCC 330 ] that: “12. It is very clear from the above provision that what is required is that the persons who are sought to be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence under Section 141 should be, at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. Only those persons who were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. It follows from the fact that if a Director of a Company who was not in-charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable for a criminal offence under the provisions. The liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. 13. The liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. 13. Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent No.1 was in-charge of or was responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially, where such statutes create vicarious liability. 14. A company may have a number of Directors and to make any or all the Directors as accused in a complaint merely on the basis of a statement that they are in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more is not a sufficient or adequate fulfillment of the requirements under Section 141. 15. In a catena of decisions, this Court has held that for making Directors liable for the offences committed by the company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Directors, showing as to how and in what manner the Directors were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. 22. Therefore, this Court has distinguished the case of persons who are in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence and the persons who are merely holding the post in a company and are not in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Further, in order to fasten the vicarious liability in accordance with Section 141, the averment as to the role of the concerned Directors should be specific. The description should be clear and there should be some unambiguous allegations as to how the concerned Directors were alleged to be in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct and affairs of the company. 36. The description should be clear and there should be some unambiguous allegations as to how the concerned Directors were alleged to be in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct and affairs of the company. 36. Section 291 of the Companies Act provides that : “291. General powers of Boards. – (1) Subject to the provisions of that Act, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorized to exercise and do.” A company, though a legal entity, can act only through its Board of Directors. The settled position is that a Managing Director is prima facie in-charge of and responsible for the company's business and affairs and can be prosecuted for offences by the company. But insofar as other Directors are concerned, they can be prosecuted only if they were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. 39. From the above discussion, the following principles emerge : (i) The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction. (ii) Section 141 does not make all the Directors liable for the offence. The criminal liability can be fastened only on those who, at the time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. (iii) Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint/petition, are made so as to make accused therein vicariously liable for offence committed by company along with averments in the petition containing that accused were in-charge of and responsible for the business of the company and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. (v) If accused is Managing Director or Joint Managing Director then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. (v) If accused is Managing Director or Joint Managing Director then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (vi) If accused is a Director or an Officer of a company who signed the cheques on behalf of the company then also it is not necessary to make specific averment in complaint. (vii) The person sought to be made liable should be in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a Director in such cases.” 20. If the said principles are applied to the facts of present case, then in view of the above-mentioned undisputed fact Criminal Case Nos.357/2012 and 358/2012 would not be maintainable so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said cases are concerned. 20.1 However, in view of the above-mentioned decisions and in light of the provision under Section 138 of the Act, the said two cases would be maintainable so far as the accused No.3 in the said two cases is concerned because in his capacity as director as well as authorized signatory for the company, it is said accused No.3 in the said two cases, who signed and issued the cheques in question and also because the complainant also has made specific allegations against the said accused No.3 in said two cases and that the said accused can rebut the allegations at the trial. 20.2 The Court would hasten to add and clarify that the above mentioned observations (i.e. the two cases would be maintainable against accused No.3 in said two cases) is subject to the conclusion of the Court as regards appellant's second contention on the ground that the three cases are not maintainable against any director/s because the complainant has not impleaded the company as accused in said three cases. 20.3 Now, so far as third criminal case, i.e. Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is concerned, in the said case, only one Director is impleaded as accused person and undisputedly, rather as per clarification, stipulation and admission made by learned advocate for the respondent at the time of hearing, the said accused person in said Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is not signatory to the cheque in question in the said case. Moreover, he is ordinary Director (i.e. not a Managing Director) in the company. 20.4 In this view of the matter, when the complaint in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is examined, then it emerges that in the said case also, the complainant has not alleged and averred that the said accused person in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 is responsible for day-to-day activities of the company and for the conduct of affairs and business of the company. 20.5 Thus, when the said accused Director is ordinary Director of the company and is not Managing Director and/or signatory to the cheque in question, then in absence of necessary averment in the complaint, the said accused Director in Criminal Case No.3772/2011 cannot be held vicariously liable for the company. In this view of the matter, the complaint, i.e. Criminal Case No.3772/2011 against the accused in the said case is not maintainable and deserves to be quashed. 21. Now, the second contention by the learned counsel for the applicants may be examined. As mentioned earlier, the applicant has raised an objection, in respect of three cases, that the said three criminal cases, the complainant has not impleaded the company as one of the accused and that, therefore, even otherwise the said three criminal cases are not maintainable. 21.1 So far as the said objection is concerned, it is necessary and relevant to mention that even if the Court does not enter into the other contentions/objections raised by the applicant against the said criminal cases and/or even if the Court does not accept the other contentions, but considers only this objection, then also, if the Court finds that the complainant has not impleaded company as one of the accused in the criminal cases, then the said three criminal cases, irrespective of other defects or not, would not be maintainable. 21.2 In this context, it is relevant and necessary to take into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Handa vs. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. [ (2007) 11 SCC 297 ]. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: “37. We have already opined that the decision in Sheoratan Agarwal (supra) runs counter to the ratio laid down in the case of C.V. Parekh (supra) which is by a larger Bench and hence, is a binding precedent. On the aforesaid ratiocination, the decision in Anil Hada (supra) has to be treated as not laying down the correct law as far as it states that the director or any other officer can be prosecuted without impleadment of the company. Needless to emphasize, the matter would stand on a different footing where there is some legal impediment and the doctrine of lex non cogit ad impossibilia gets attracted. 38. At this juncture, we may usefully refer to the decision in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Modi Distillery and others [43]. In the said case, the company was not arraigned as an accused and, on that score, the High Court quashed the proceeding against the others. A two-Judge Bench of this Court observed as follows: 38. “Although as a pure proposition of law in the abstract the learned single Judge’s view that there can be no vicarious liability of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors under sub-s.(1) or (2) of S.47 of the Act unless there was a prosecution against Messers Modi Industries Limited, the Company owning the industrial unit, can be termed as correct, the objection raised by the petitioners before the High Court ought to have been viewed not in isolation but in the conspectus of facts and events and not in vacuum. We have already pointed out that the technical flaw in the complaint is attributable to the failure of the industrial unit to furnish the requisite information called for by the Board. Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a nature which could be easily cured. We have already pointed out that the technical flaw in the complaint is attributable to the failure of the industrial unit to furnish the requisite information called for by the Board. Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a nature which could be easily cured. Another circumstance which brings out the narrow perspective of the learned single Judge is his failure to appreciate the fact that the averment in paragraph 2 has to be construed in the light of the averments contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 which are to the effect that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors were also liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company.” Be it noted, the two-Judge Bench has correctly stated that there can be no vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution against the company owning the industrial unit but, regard being had to the factual matrix, namely, the technical fault on the part of the company to furnish the requisite information called for by the Board, directed for making a formal amendment by the applicant and substitute the name of the owning industrial unit. It is worth noting that in the said case, M/s. Modi distilleries was arrayed as a party instead of M/s Modi Industries Limited. Thus, it was a defective complaint which was curable but, a pregnant one, the law laid down as regards the primary liability of the company without which no vicarious liability can be imposed has been appositely stated. 42. We have referred to the aforesaid passages only to highlight that there has to be strict observance of the provisions regard being had to the legislative intendment because it deals with penal provisions and a penalty is not to be imposed affecting the rights of persons whether juristic entities or individuals, unless they are arrayed as accused. It is to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is vested in the legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of commission of offence by the company. It is to be kept in mind that the power of punishment is vested in the legislature and that is absolute in Section 141 of the Act which clearly speaks of commission of offence by the company. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the use of the term “as well as” in the Section is of immense significance and, in its tentacle, it brings in the company as well as the director and/or other officers who are responsible for the acts of the company and, therefore, a prosecution against the directors or other officers is tenable even if the company is not arraigned as an accused. The words “as well as” have to be understood in the context. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others [44] it has been laid down that the entire statute must be first read as a whole, then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. The same principle has been reiterated in Deewan Singh and others v. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi and others [45] and Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India [46]. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words “as well as the company” appearing in the Section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a director is indicted. 43. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh (supra) which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal (supra) does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier as stated in paragraph 37. The decision in Modi Distilleries (supra) has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove.” 21.3 Thus, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, criminal case, wherein the complainant has filed the complaint invoking provisions under section 141 of the Act, i.e. for holding the Directors vicariously liable, then impleadment of the company as accused in the case is 'imperative' and in absence of the company as accused, the complaint/criminal case, wherein only Directors are impleaded and company is not impleaded as accused, would not be maintainable. 21.4 So far as the three criminal cases are concerned on reading of the complaints (cause title of the complaint), it has emerged that the company is not impleaded as accused in the said three criminal case No.357/2011 and 358/2011. 21.5 It is necessary to clarify that initially some doubt was raised in the view of the submission made by learned advocate for the respondent in light of the description of the parties in the cause title of the complaints/criminal cases. However, subsequently, the Court called for the copy of the notices served by the respondent – complainant so as to examine as to whether notice was served to the company as an accused or not. In response to the direction, learned advocate for the respondent placed on record the notices (issued by the respondent in pursuance of which the three criminal cases came to be filed). The Court has examined the copies of the said notices. 21.6 On examination of the said notices, it has emerged that the respondent – complainant addressed notices only to three Directors and not to the company. The Court has examined the copies of the said notices. 21.6 On examination of the said notices, it has emerged that the respondent – complainant addressed notices only to three Directors and not to the company. 21.7 Thereafter, on the basis of the said notices, the respondent – complainant filed the complaint/criminal case in the Court and when the cause title of the said criminal cases is carefully examined in light of the notices, it emerges that it is filed only against the Directors and the company is not impleaded as party. 21.8 The description in the cause title of the three criminal cases is quoted hereinabove earlier wherefrom it emerges that the complainant has described the parties as mentioned in paragraph Nos. 8 to 8.4 hereinabove. 21.9 When the said description is examined in light of and in conjunction with the notices and the description of the parties in the notices, it emerges that the respondent – complainant has described that the accused persons are Directors of the company (whose name is mentioned), but the company is not impleaded as an independent accused over and above the Directors. 22. Therefore, even if the above-mentioned other objections and contentions raised by the applicants are not taken into account and only this one contention is taken into account, then also it emerges that the respondent – complainant has failed to implead the company as one of the accused in the said three complaints/criminal cases and in view of the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aneeta Handa (supra), the said defect is fatal which renders the said three criminal cases unsustainable because, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in absence of the impleadment of the company as accused, the Directors of the company cannot be held vicariously liable. 23. Under the circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, the applicants' objection is required to be accepted and it is necessary to hold that in absence of impleadment of the company as accused in the said three criminal cases, the said criminal cases are not maintainable and the said three complaints/criminal cases are required to be quashed. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the above-mentioned reasons, the three complaints/criminal cases being Criminal Case Nos.357/2012, 358/2012 and 3772/2011 are not maintainable and the said cases, therefore, not be allowed to continue. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the above-mentioned reasons, the three complaints/criminal cases being Criminal Case Nos.357/2012, 358/2012 and 3772/2011 are not maintainable and the said cases, therefore, not be allowed to continue. Therefore, the said criminal cases and all proceedings undertaken until now in connection with the said criminal cases are quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The applications are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Order accordingly.