Per R. Basant, J.—These revision petitions are filed by the complainant in two identical prosecutions between same parties against the dropping of proceedings against three accused persons invoking the dictum in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala1.

2. The prosecutions are under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the respondents/accused 3 to 5 are not signatories in the cheque. There is no contention that they are the managing partners of the firm on behalf of which are co-accused/managing partner had issued the cheque. There was of course a vague and sweeping assertion in the complaint filed that the petitioners are also in charge of and responsible for the conduct of transactions of the firm. After cognizance was taken, respondents/accused 3 to 5 came before this Court and complained about the cognizance being taken against them without sufficient materials. Those Crl. MCs. were disposed with the observations that it shall be open to the petitioners to claim dropping of proceedings by invoking the dictum in K.M. Mathew’s case, (supra). Accordingly, the learned Magistrate proceeded to consider the objections raised and passed the impugned Orders.

3. It has o