( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 290/2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Cuddapah.

( 2 ) THE briefs that are necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the accused-company owed a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant-company on account of milk supplied by the latter to the former, that the cheque bearing No. 441183, dated 29-4-2002, for Rs. 6 lakhs issued by the accused-company to the complainant-company was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, that the complainant again presented the cheque in the bank and it was dishonoured yet again on 21-8-2002 for the same reason, that the complainant issued a notice demanding the accused to pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days, and that in spite of receiving the notice, the accused did not pay the same, and hence the complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was registered as C. C. No. 290/2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Cuddapah. The accused filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in that case.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in order to make a person liable, three conditions have to be satisfied, as per the proviso to that Section. They are- (1) the cheque is presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier, (2) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for payment of the amount of money by giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of the intimation by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (3) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. However, the explanation to that Section says that the debt or other liability for the purpose of the Section means legally enforceable debt or other liability.

( 4 ) AS seen from the complaint, the complainant did milk business with the accused-company namely Ravileela Dairy Products Ltd. , and in that transaction, the accused-company became due to a tune of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant-company. Therefore, the complainant has got a right to recover the amount through process of the Court. To discharge the debt, the accused gave the cheque in question on 29-4-2002, but it was ultimately returned unpaid with an endorsement insufficient funds .

( 5 ) A cheque can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date of its issue or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. When the cheque was returned for want of funds, the cause of action starts from the date of issuance of a notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque. After receipt of notice by the accused, he has to pay the amount within 15 days. If the amount is not paid, then the complainant has got a right to file a complaint to prosecute the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 6 ) THE first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the accused is p. Srinivasa Reddy , and not m. Sreenivasa Reddy as stated in the notice and also in the complaint. The defect, if any, is only with regard to the surname of the accused. There is no dispute about the identity of the accused as Managing Director of Ravileela Granites Pvt. Ltd. This is only a technical defect which can be rectified. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent stated that steps have already been taken to get the surname of the accused corrected in the complaint. On the mere ground of wrong mentioning of the surname of the accused, the complaint cannot be dism