R.L. Khurana, J.—This order will dispose of the above noted three petitions made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, vide criminal complaints Nos. 268-1/1997, 269-1/1997 and 319-1/1997 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Manali since common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. Stated briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are these. The respondent in September, 1996 had supplied watches worth Rs. 16,55,559/- to the petitioner. A balance of Rs. 9,40,000/- was due from the petitioner. The petitioner gave three cheques as under to the respondent :-

Cheques No. Dated Amount

044183 15.2.1997 16,300/-

044184 15.3.1997 16.300/-

044174 15.4.1997 2,00,000/-

3. All the said three cheques were drawn on Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The first two cheques were in respect of the interest amount payable by petitioner on the outstanding amount, while the third cheque was towards part payment of the outstanding amount. All these three cheques on having been presented to the Bank for encashment by the respondent through his Bank were returned with the endorsement " Payment stopped by the drawer".

4. The respondent thereafter served notices on the petitioner calling upon him to pay the amount of cheques within fifteen days of the receipt of such notices. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount, these complaints came to be filed by the respondent for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, (for short the Act).

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, after holding the inquiry as contemplated under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, took cognizance of the offence and ordered the issuance of process against the petitioner for his prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

6. The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in all the three cases, issuing process to the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner by way of three petitions being Cr. M.M.O. Nos. 10 of 1998, 11 of 1998 and 13 of 1998, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Main grounds urged therein were:

(a) Stoppage of payment by the drawer does not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act; and

(b) Service of notice as contemplated under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, was not proved.

7. All the said three petitions were dismissed by this Court on 25.3.1998. The order by this Courts reads :

"Heard.

In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Nandi, JT 1998 (2) SC 198=III (1998) SLT 126=1 (1999) CCR 44=1 (1998) BC 421 (SC)., there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly rejected. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner shall be at a liberty to raise all such points as may be available to him during the trial of the case before the Trial Court."

8. After the dismissal of the above referred petitions under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners applied to the learned Magistrate for recalling of the order issuing process to him for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Though as many as eight grounds were raised in the applications, however, the petitioner confined his case only to the following two grounds :

(a) Since the cheques in question were issued by the petitioner in his capacity of Directors of Messrs Bhalla Techtran Industries Limited, to whom the supply of the watches was made, the complaints made by the respondent against the petitioner without impleading the said company, were not maintainable ; and

(b) In the absence of notice as contemplated by proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act to the Company of which the petitioner is a Director, the petitioner could not be proceeded against and the complaints were not maintainable.

9. While the applicati