Legal notices under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act must provide sufficient information about the bouncing of the cheques. Filing separate complaints for each dishonoured cheque is not mandatory under the law.

( 1 ) SINCE the parties are the same and as common question of law is involved, both these petitions can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are the accused 1 to 3 in CC No. 46 of 2001 and 47 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. The second respondent herein is the complainant in both the cases. The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them in the above two cases invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure ( the Code for brevity ).

( 3 ) THE factual matrix may be set forth at the outset for brevity and better understanding of the matter thus: the second respondent herein is the complainant. The complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument act mentioning inter alia, that the complainant-firm is doing business in procuring the milk and supplying the same to the needy; and that the accused-firm has also been doing business in selling milk with its office at Chennai; and that during the course of business in terms of the agreement between the complainant and the accused inter se the complainant supplied milk and the accused fell in dues. On the demands made by the complainant, the accused issued as many as 20 cheques on different dates as detailed, inter alia, in the complaint for various amounts which are the subject-matter of CC No. 47 of 2001 and a cheque bearing No. 988534 dated 22-5-2000 for an amount of Rs. 1,42,561/- which is the subject-matter of CC No. 46 of 2001. The complainant presented 20 cheques for collection through its Banker, namely, Vijaya bank, Tenali Branch on various dates before the expiry of the period of six months and on 20-11-2000 the cheque dated 22-5-2000 with the Bank and all the cheques were dishonoured by the Banker of the accused at chennai with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer" under various memos, issued by the Banker. On receipt of those memos from the drawer s Banker, the complainant Banker through its letters dated 14-12-2000, 19-12-2000, and 29-11-2000 returned those cheques to the complainant. On receipt of the above dishonoured cheques, the complainant issued requisite legal notices dated 9-12-2000 in CC No. 46 of 2001 and dated 27-12-2000 in CC No. 47 of 2001 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the intimation from the Banker calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered by those cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of those notices. The notice-dated 9-12-2000 was received by the accused under an acknowledgment- dated 10-12-2000 and the notice-dated 27-12-2000 was received by the accused and in both the cases the accused kept quite without giving any reply. The complainant, therefore, filed two complaints against the accused, namely, the firm, its Managing director and Director respectively. The petitioners, as aforesaid, seek to quash these proceedings in both the Criminal cases filed against them.

( 4 ) SRI C. Nageshwara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the legal notices issued in these cases do not contain the amounts covered by the dishonoured cheques and, therefore, they suffer from the legal infirmity and cannot constitute valid legal notices. The learned Counsel further contends that the Court at Guntur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said complaints inasmuch as the cheques were drawn admittedly at Chennai. The learned Counsel further contends that in CC No. 47 of 2001 for all the 20 dishonoured cheques a single complaint was filed instead of filing independent complaints inasmuch as separate cause of action has arisen in respect of each cheque and therefore it is bad.

( 5 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent-complainant, countering the said arguments, contends that there is nothing illegal in filing a single complaint for all the 20 dishonured cheques. The learned senior c