LEAVE GRANTED.

2. A COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THE COURT OF IVTH ADDITIONAL MUNSIF MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR THAT THE FIRM (THE RESPONDENT) AND THREE OTHER PERSONS NAMED THEREIN AS ACCUSED HAVE COMMITTED CERTAIN ACTS WHICH ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “THE ACT”).

3. THE COMPLAINT SET OUT THAT A CHEQUE HAD BEEN ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM, 1ST ACCUSED BY T. SATYANARANA, 3RD ACCUSED BUT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTE ANY PARTICULAR ACT DONE BY THE 4TH ACCUSED, WHO IS THE APPELLANT BEFORE US.

4. THE TRIAL COURT HAVING PROCEEDED WITH THE MATTER, A PETITION WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 482, CR.P.C. FOR QUASHING THE COMPLAINT. THE SAID PETITION HAVING BEEN DISMISSED THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY SPECIAL LEAVE. IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY OTHERS HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY OUR Order DATED 15.2.2002. THE CONTENTION URGED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS THAT ALL OF THEM ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM AND ONLY T. SATYANARANA, 3RD ACCUSED WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FIRM, FIRST ACCUSED. WHETHER IT IS SO OR NOT, IS NOT FOR US TO EXAMINE AT THIS STAGE OF THE MATTER. HOWEVER, ONE TH