( 1 ) THESE Criminal Petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they raise an identical point for decision.

( 2 ) FOR purposes of convenience the facts in Crl. P. No. 5145 of 1996 are only stated. It is alleged that first respondent was doing cotton business. He is the managing Partner of the firm M/s. Yerram Sesha Reddy and Company. The petitioner is the chairman of M/s. Ravindra Mills Limited, Coimbatore. The petitioner issued a cheque dated 23-9-1995 for a particular sum on Bank of baroda of which the main branch is at Coimbatore. The cheque was in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent presented the cheque in his account with his banker. However, after due advice, the cheque was returned with endorsement that the drawer had stopped the payment. This was on 25-10-1995. Thereafter, the first respondent after following the procedure of issuing notice etc. as required by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) filed a complaint which was registered as Criminal case on the file of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, paruchur. It was for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner appeared in pursuance of the summons and requested by appropriate petition that the proceedings be dropped against him. One of the grounds, alleged in the said petition to drop the proceedings, was that the prosecution was initiated only against the petitioner without impleading the Company as accused. The prosecution was not maintainable as against the petitioner alone. Unless the company is also named accused, the prosecution is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition by his order dated 3-9-1996.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has now come here seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against him on the ground that unless the Company is made co-accused, the prosecution is not maintainable. The proceedings being not maintainable against him alone, should be quashed. As pointed out already the other two petitions raise identical point. The parties are same. Only the cheques are different and for different sum. However, the transactions are similar.

( 4 ) SRI J. Dasaradhi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously argued and contended that the prosecution has been initiated only against the petitioner, who is the Chairman of the Company. Though petitioner had issued the cheque, the Company itself must also be made accused. Without the Company being made accused, the prosecution is not maintainable. He relies for this proposition on one judgment of the Madras High Court in k. Krishna Bai, M. D. M/s. Surya Advertising Private Limited vs. M/s. Arti Press. However, in fairness to Mr. Dasaradhi it must also be pointed out that he has brought to my notice the judgment of this Court delivered by Mr. Justice g. Radhakrishna Rao in M. Venkateswara Rao vs. N. Venkateswarlu and others. This judgment of this High Court does not approve the Madrash High Court s view. What is argued by Sri Dasaradhi is that as there is difference of opinion in the Krisana Bai s case and the decision of this Court in M. Venkateswara Rao s case, I should refer the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative exposition of law. If really I were myself satisfied with the view propounded by the Madras high Court as the correct one perhaps. I would have directed this matter to be placed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for reference to a Larger Bench. However, after giving my anxious thoughts and deep consideration, is the question involved, I am fully satisfied that the position enunciated in venkateswara Rao s case (2 supra) is correct.

( 5 ) WE must refer to Section 138 and Section 141 of the Act and they are as follows:- "138. 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