Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 09.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Sanjeeva Shukla (also referred to as Sanjiv Shukla), a Director of Credforce Asia Limited; Opposite Party – the complainant (unnamed) with no representation in the revisional application.
  • Proceedings Challenged: Criminal case No. AC‑2374 of 2021 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore, under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • Statutory Basis of Revision: Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRR 2628 of 2024) seeking quash of the proceedings.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions:
  • The complaint does not allege that the petitioner, merely by being a Director, was “in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business” as required by Section 141.
  • Absence of specific averments makes the vicarious liability provision in Section 141 inapplicable.
  • Cited judgments: Ashok Shewakramani & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) 8 SCC 473; Siby Thomas V. Somany Ceramics Limited (2024) 1 SCC 348; Rahul Tantia V. State of West Bengal (2023) SCC OnLine Cal 2618.
  • Legal Reasoning Presented by the Court:
  • Section 141 creates a legal fiction of vicarious liability but must be strictly construed; both conjunctive requirements – “in charge of” and “responsible to” – must be pleaded.
  • Supreme Court precedent in Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P & Anr. (2022) clarified that a complaint must specifically aver the director’s charge and responsibility; mere designation is insufficient.
  • Additional precedents reiterated: Shaleen Khemani & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal (2018) 1 C Cr. LR (Cal) 515; Sunil Todi & Ors. V. State of Gujarat (2021) 14 SCALE; Sunita Palita vs M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry (2022) Supreme Court; and 2023 INSC 692 judgment emphasizing the conjunctive reading of “and”.
  • The complaint in the present case merely described the directors as “engaged in managing day‑to‑day business” without pinpointing any specific act, signature on the cheque, or control over the transaction that led to the dishonour.
  • The complainant failed to disclose which director actually signed the cheque, rendering the allegation vague and non‑compliant with statutory requirements.
  • The court noted that the opposite party/complainant did not appear despite service, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
  • Conclusion of the Court:
  • No sufficient averments or prima facie case exist to sustain prosecution under Sections 138/141 against the petitioner.
  • The revisional application is allowed; the criminal proceedings are quashed with respect to Sanjeeva Shukla.

Final Outcome

  • The proceedings of Case No. AC‑2374 of 2021 under Sections 138/141 NI Act are quashed in respect of petitioner Sanjeeva Shukla.
  • All connected applications, if any, are disposed of; interim orders, if any, are vacated.
  • The trial court is directed to comply with the judgment and furnish a certified copy on the court website as per procedural requirements.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Negotiable Instruments Act, Director Liability