C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the petitions arise out of the same C. CNo. 125 of 2003 on the file of the court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate at Guntur, they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) CRL. P. NO. 4811 of 2003 is filed by A-2 and A-4 and Crl. P. No. 5100 of 2003 is filed by a-3 in the aforesaid C. C. No. 125 of 2003 to quash the proceedings against them on the ground that they are not liable for punishment under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act (for short the Act )-

( 3 ) FIRST respondent filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Act alleging that the petitioners in these petitions and K. K. Raja Malleswara Rao (A-l) entered into an agreement to sell property measuring 325 square yards to him at the rate of Rs. 2750. 00 per sq. yd. , and received Rs. 2,50,000. 00 as advance from him, but failed to register the land in his favour, but agreed to refund the amount received from him and accordingly a-l on behalf of himself, and the petitioners herein issued a cheque bearing No. 000063 dated 31-10-2002 drawn on ICICI Bank, guntur to him. But it was dishonoured when he presented it in the Indian Overseas Bank, chandamoulinagar branch on 13-2-2003 for payment by the ICICI Bank with an endorsement that there was no sufficient funds. When he brought that fact to the notice of A-l and the petitioners, they requested him to represent the cheque. Believing their words he again presented the cheque on 3-3-2003 in the Indian Overseas bank, Chandamoulinagar branch. But the same was also dishonoured as per memo dated 4-3-2003 of ICICI Bank received by him on 5-3-2003. Therefore, he got issued a notice to A-l and the petitioners informing them about the dishonour of the cheque, with a demand to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. A-l, 1st petitioner in Crl. P. No. 4811 of 2003 and petitioners in Crl. P. No. 5100 of 2003 received the notices and sent a reply with false allegations and failed to pay the amount as demanded. 2nd petitioner in Crl. P. No. 4811 of 2003 refused to receive the notice. Since the petitioners and A-l entered into the agreement to sell and the cheque was issued by A-l on behalf of petitioners also, petitioners also are liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since petitioners did not draw the cheque on any bank account in their name in favour of the first respondent they cannot be made liable for punishment under Section 138 of the Act, by placing reliance of E. V. Ramanarasaiah and another v. G. Gnaneswar and another.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that since A-l and petitioners have been acting as partners, if not actual partners, and since the dishonoured cheque was issued by A-l on behalf of all the petitioners also they also are liable to be punished under Section 138 of the act. In Electronics Trade and Technology development Corpn. Ltd. v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics (P) Ltd.) the Supreme court held Section 138 of the Act is intended to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument to draw a cheque without sufficient funds in his account maintained by him in a bank and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it.

( 6 ) SECTION 138 of the Act reads:"where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document