discerned, even on a fair reading of the complaint is
that, it is generally stated that accused Nos. 2 to 5
are partners of accused No.1 partnership firm and they
are at all material times, responsible for the conduct
of business and day to-day affiaris of accused No.1.
This allegation is not enough to indicate the
complicity of the applicant. Even if he is a partner
of the registered firm, that by itself does not make
the person liable for the offence committed by the
firm. It is not in dispute that the applicant is not
the signatory to the cheque in question. Recently, I
had occasion to consider the question which is
required to be answered in the present application, in
the case of Madanlal Taparia & Anr. vs. The Bank of
Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. in criminal writ petition No.
2241/2004 decided on 14th December, 2004. It is well
settled that merely because the person is director of
the accused company, does not make him liable for the
offence committed by the Company. Something more has
to be alleged and established, which is clearly
lacking in the present complaint. In other words, no
material facts are alleged in the complaint as filed,
so as to make the applicant liable within the meaning
of section 141 of the Act.
