2. The short question that is involved in the
present Application is: whether the complaint as
filed, makes out a case to indicate complicity of
present Applicant who has been named as accused
No.7 in the criminal action instituted before the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th
Court, Borivali, by the Respondent No.1? It is
relevant to note that originally the complaint was
filed only against the Company. Later on, on the
application made by the complainant on 29th April
2003, six persons came to be named as accused on
the assertion that they were the Directors of the
Company, and whose names were not known to the
Complainant at the time of filing of the complaint.
The fact remains that the complaint as filed makes
no reference to the involvement of the Applicant.
It is not the case of the complainant that the
Applicant is the signatory to the cheque in
question. There is no assertion in the complaint
as is required under Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act’), so as to indicate the complicity of the
Applicant/accused No.7. Merely being a Director,
by itself, will not make the person liable for
