Meaningful verification under Section 200 CrPC is required before process in cheque dishonour cases against company directors.

Complaint averments that company directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business were sufficient to satisfy Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the stage of issuance of process. However, the Magistrate must independently examine the complainant on oath under Section 200 CrPC and cannot treat verification as a mechanical formality. A pre-set, fill-in-the-blanks statement that does not elicit the accused directors' role fails the statutory duty and shows non-application of judicial mind. The process was quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh statement under Section 200 and further action according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process issued in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the directors of a company could be sustained when the complaint contained averments attracting Section 141 but the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded in a mechanical pre-set format.

Analysis: The complaint contained sufficient averments that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, which was enough for compliance with Section 141 at the stage of issuance of process. However, the statement under Section 200 of the Code is not an empty formality. Its object is to enable the Magistrate to elicit the truth and form a prima facie view on the basis of a real examination on oath. A verification recorded merely by filling in particulars in a ready-made format, without asking the complainant to explain the role of the accused, does not satisfy the statutory duty under Section 200. The Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind and cannot mechanically record verification in complaints of this nature, especially where vicarious liability is alleged.

Conclusion: The order issuing process was unsustainable because the verification under Section 200 was not properly recorded. The process was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate to record the complainant's statement afresh and proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for cheque dishonour involving company directors, the complaint must contain the basic averments required by Section 141, and the Magistrate must independently examine the complainant on oath under Section 200 in a meaningful manner before issuing process; a mechanical verification in a pre-set format is insufficient.

---