Director/Joint Managing Director, as the designation in their office so held, is in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company is entitled to get covered under Sec.141(1). It has also been held by the Apex Court in National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330, that as far as the signatory of a dishonoured cheque is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act inasmuch as if the Director or official of the company, who has signed the cheque, then also it is not necessary to raise such averments in the complaint. Since the Managing Director of the1st accused Society, who happens to be the first signatory of the cheque, has not been separately arrayed as an accused in his individual capacity, there is no question of the complainant getting the benefit of the above said legal position. However, the 2nd petitioner, who is stated to be the President of the society, is alleged to be the second signatory of the alleged cheque in question. Therefore, there need not be any specific averments in the complaint that he was in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company at the relevant time. The above said judgment of the Apex Court has been reiterated and reaffirmed in a catena of rulings and it is not necessary to cite such subsequent precedents. Accordingly, in the light of the above said legal principles flowing from
