The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment opining that the allegations contained in the complaint petition as against respondent No. 1 are vague and indefinite and do not satisfy the requirements of law as contained in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act"), held that no case had been made out for issuance of any summons against her. As regards the contention raised by the appellant herein that the involvement of respondent No. 1 in the affairs of the Company is evident from the resolution dated 15-2-1995, the High Court opined that the same by itself did not disclose commission of any offence on the day of commission of the offence. Appellant has filed the appeal aggrieved by the said judgment. Requirements of law for proceeding against the Directors of the Company for their purported constructive liability came up for consideration in this case before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the following questions were posed: Whether for purposes of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a whole fulfils the requirements of the said section and it is not necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in-charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company. "Therefore, if the authorities have followed the conditions of auction notified by the State Government in the Gazette and also published in the auction notice long in advance, the petitioner could not make any grievance that the authorities committed any wrong. In fact, the authorities were expected to act in accordance with the conditions laid down by the State Government and the conditions advertised. It also could not be doubted that as the conditions for re-auction as are stated in Rule 12(a) and (b) are not satisfied, the prayer of the petitioner for re-auction could not be granted either by the Excise Commissioner or by the State Government." In Bhatia's case (supra), there was a loss of revenue to the tune of Rs. 11 lacs. yet this Court did not allow the re-auction. In the case in hand, there would be question of hardly a loss of revenue to the tune of Rs. 3,72,100/-. However, securing interest of revenue would not mean that the respondents may be permitted to act in contravention of the conditions which were obviously binding on them. Thus, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the State authorities have a right to secure more revenue, cannot be accepted at the cost of illegality and arbitrariness. Moreover, there is no iota on record to establish that the Excise Commissioner has, in fact, exercised the power under Clause 19 of Annex. P/4 on consideration of interest of revenue.