- (1.) Proceeding being case No. C/36728/2010 pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been assailed at the behest of the petitioners. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the accused company whereas the petitioner No. 2 and 3 have been roped in on the score of vicarious liability under section 141 of the N.I. Act. He however admitted that the petitioner No. 2 is the signatory of the cheque. He submitted that averment against the petitioner No. 3 was insufficient to implicate him in the instant case by invoking section 141 of the N.I. Act.
(2.) Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/com-plainant submitted that the requisite averments have been made in the petition of complaint as well as the evidence on affidavit of the complainant filed under section 145(1) of the N.I. Act. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revisional petition.
(3.) I find that the petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the company and also the signatory of the dishonoured cheque. Accordingly prosecution of the petitioner No. 2 under section 141 of the N.I. Act cannot be faulted in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr., 2005 8 SCC 89.;