Section 319 evidence by affidavit and managing director liability under NI Act sustain summoning despite omission from complaint.

Section 319 CrPC can be invoked on evidence recorded by affidavit at the pre-summoning stage, because examination in chief is sufficient and cross-examination need not be completed before the court acts. The Delhi HC also reaffirmed that liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to a person in charge of and responsible for the company's business; a managing director is ordinarily within that category. The petitioner could not avoid proceedings merely because his name was absent from the original complaint or because no separate notice had been issued. The challenge to summoning was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence recorded at the pre-summoning stage, being by affidavit and amounting to examination in chief, was sufficient for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the petitioner as an accused; (ii) Whether the petitioner, as Chairman and Managing Director of the company, could avoid liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the original complaint and no separate notice was issued to him.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence recorded at the pre-summoning stage, being by affidavit and amounting to examination in chief, was sufficient for invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to summon the petitioner as an accused.

Analysis: The power under Section 319 can be exercised once examination in chief is completed and the court need not wait for cross-examination. An affidavit filed by the complainant's witness constituted examination in chief. Since the accused had not yet been summoned, no cross-examination had taken place, but that did not deprive the material of the character of evidence for the purpose of Section 319.

Conclusion: The evidence was sufficient to invoke Section 319 and summon the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, as Chairman and Managing Director of the company, could avoid liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the original complaint and no separate notice was issued to him.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 attaches to persons who, at the relevant time, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. A managing director is ordinarily treated as responsible for the company's business. The absence of the petitioner's name in the original complaint did not erase his role as the person in charge, and separate notice to him was not required where the cheque transactions were those of the company and he was responsible for its affairs.

Conclusion: The petitioner remained liable and his addition as an accused was not an abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and the revisional order failed, and the petitions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, examination in chief is sufficient evidence, and a managing director who is in charge of and responsible for the company's business can be proceeded against under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 even if not named in the original complaint or separately noticed.

---