Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 28.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Sanjeeva Shukla @ Sanjiv Shukla (Director of Credforce Asia Limited) vs. Krishna Kumar Chamria (opposite party, unrepresented).
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Sandipan Ganguly, Ms. Priyanka Sarkar, Ms. Susmita Das.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal revisional application (CRR 2619 of 2024) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quash of criminal proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Case No. CS/104370 of 2021) pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta.
  • Background: The petitioner, a director of Credforce Asia Limited (Accused No. 1), was arraigned solely on the basis of his directorship. The complaint did not allege that he was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time, nor did it attribute any specific act (e.g., signing or authorising the cheque) to him.
  • Legal Arguments Presented: Senior counsel Mr. Ganguly argued that:
  • The complaint failed to satisfy mandatory requirements of Section 141, which demands a specific averment that the accused was "in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business."
  • Section 141 creates a legal fiction of vicarious liability and must be strictly construed; mere designation as director is insufficient.
  • The conjunctive wording "and" in Section 141(1) makes both conditions cumulative.
  • Precedents supporting this view include Ashok Shewakramani & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) 8 SCC 473, Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd (2024) 1 SCC 348, Rahul Tantia v. State of West Bengal (2023) SCC OnLine Cal 2618, Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P & Anr. (2022) SCALE, Sunil Todi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2021) 14 SCALE, Sunita Palita v. M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry (2022), among others.
  • Court Observations:
  • The complaint is silent on the petitioner’s role, participation in the transaction, issuance or execution of the cheque, and any overt act or omission attributable to him.
  • No specific allegation identifies which director signed the cheque; the complaint merely states that the cheque was issued "by accused persons."
  • The opposite party/complainant did not appear before the Court despite being served.
  • The Court reiterated that for Section 141 liability, the complaint must contain clear, specific, and unambiguous averments of the director’s involvement; mere management or day‑to‑day involvement is insufficient.
  • Citing the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Goel (2022) and various High Court judgments, the Court emphasized that the statutory requirement of being "in charge of and responsible for" the business cannot be satisfied by generic statements.
  • The Court found no prima facie case or sufficient averments to sustain the prosecution against the petitioner.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application (CRR 2619 of 2024) is allowed.
  • The criminal proceedings of Case No. CS/104370 of 2021 under Sections 138/141 NI Act, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, are quashed with respect to petitioner Sanjeeva Shukla.
  • All connected applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • Any interim order, if existent, is vacated.
  • A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
  • An urgent certified website copy shall be supplied expeditiously upon request, subject to legal formalities.

Topics: Director Liability, Negotiable Instruments Act