- (1.) Heard Mr. Amit Daga for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) Mr. Amit Daga submitted that the offences disclosed in the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 are alleged to have been committed by Ms. Dynamic Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated in the Companies Act, and all the applicants are the Directors of the said company, therefore, the applicants cannot be prosecuted only on the ground that they are the Directors of the company. Mr. Daga further submitted that the learned Magistrate should have kept in mind the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the Act') while proceeding against the aforesaid company, therefore, he was not justified in issuing processes to the applicants. In support of the aforesaid submissions Mr. Daga placed reliance on the cases of K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Arora and Anr.,2010 2 SCC 1181 and National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr., 2010 3 SCC 330.
(3.) In the case of K.K. Ahuja (supra) the Apex Court after referring to various decisions of the Apex Court made the following observations in para 15: 15. The prevailing trend appears to require the complainant to state how a Director who is sought to be made an accused, was in charge of the business of the company, as every Director need not be and is not in charge of the business of the company. If that is the position in regard to a Director, it is needless to emphasise that in the case of non-Director officers, there is all the more the need to state what his part is with regard to conduct of business of the company and how and in what manner he is liable.;