K.T. Thomas, J. Petitioner is a firm. On the strength of some cheques said to have been issued by the petitioner-firm two complaints have been filed against the managing partner of the firm for the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). First complaint was filed on 23.11.1991 and the other was filed on 28.6.1991. Managing partner of the firm, after entering appearance, raised a contention in the lower court that prosecution against him is not maintainable as the firm which drew the cheques was not made an accused in the complaints. On 6.11.1992 the complainant filed a petition in each case praying for imp-leading the firm as additional accused. Though the petitions were stoutly resisted the Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the complaints were filed, allowed the petitions by the impugned order.

2. Two main contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for quashing the order. First is that since there is no provision in the Act for impleading a new accused in the case, the court cannot make recourse to the general provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for show the Code). Even otherwise S. 142 of the Act makes i