T.Ch. Surya Rao, J. - Since the parties are the same and as common question of law has arisen for consideration in all these Criminal Revision Cases, they can be disposed of together.

2. The petitioner is the accused in as many as 14 cases filed against him by the 1st respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mentioning inter alia that during the course of business transaction between the complainant and the accused the accused took milk products from the complainant on credit basis on different occasions and in discharge of the legally enforceable debt the accused issued different cheques to the complainant on different dates and that when those cheques having been presented for encashment with the banker were dishonoured and that even when the requisite legal notices were issued to - the accused within the stipulated time demanding payment, he having been received those notices failed to pay the amounts covered by those cheques and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

3. Pursuant to summon issued by the court after taking cognizance, the accused appeared in all those cases. He then filed separate petitions in each case under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to discharge him. Inter alia in those petitions initially he had taken objections that the complaints, having been filed by the company through its Manager, who has not been properly authorised to represent the said company, which is a proprietary concern, were not maintainable. Another objection taken was that M/s. Suruchi Milk Products Private Limited was having alleged transactions with the complainant and without impleading the said company he was impleaded in his individual capacity as an accused which was not proper. The twin objections taken by him while seeking to discharge have not been found favour with by the court below which dismissed eventually all those petitions after enquiry. The petitioner is now assailing those orders before this court in these revision cases.

4. The only contention raised by Sri A. Ramnarayana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, before me was that there was no proper authorisation given to the Manager and the complainant being a proprietary concern should have been filed by the proprietor himself in his individual capacity but not through the agent and therefore the complaints having not been filed properly are liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel seeks to draw a distinction between a body corporate like a company or an association of individuals with that of a proprietary concern and seeks to contend that in respect of a proprietary concern the complaint should be filed always by the person who is the proprietor of the concern, since it was not a body corporate. On this slender point, all these cases hinge upon.

5. The Code has not envisaged any procedure as to who shall present the complaint when the complainant is a body corporate, regardless of the fact that it is a proprietary concern or a body consisting of individuals like a company firm, or other association of individuals. The body corporate is a juristic person and. therefore, it is the de jure complainant undoubtedly Since it is a juristic person, there shall be a corporeal person to present the complaint before a court of Law, who will be the de facto complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners at this juncture seeks to distinguish a proprietary concern qua a Company or a firm or other group of individuals. The learned counsel contends that in the case of proprietary concern except the name of efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings mayor may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquen