( 1 ) BOTH these matters are between the same parties involving identical question of law and fact, therefore, are decided by this common judgment. The petitioners are the original accused in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for brief ). The learned Magistrate taking cognisance of the matter issued summons against the petitioners. Aggrieved by initiation of criminal proceedings and cognisance taken by the Court, the petitioners have filed these petitions under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Cr. P. C. for brief) for quashing the proceedings and summons in exercise of inherent powers so as to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of Court.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these cases are briefly adverted as hereunder : respondent No. 2 - Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Ltd. , is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act for brief) having its registered office at Mumbai and manufacturing unit at Gandhidham. The said company is engaged in the activities relating to manufacture of perfumes and other beauty products. Petitioner No. 1 is also a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act whereas petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 are directors and officers of petitioner No. 1 company. Petitioner No. 1 original accused gave a cheque bearing No. 706175 dated 20-8-1996 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Fort branch, Mumbai for Rs. 1,12,00,000. 00 to the respondent No. 2 in discharge of debt and liability. As alleged, the said cheque was returned dishonoured and unpaid with the endorsement "not Arranged for and Joint Signature Required" vide bank memo dated 14-12-1996. It is in this background that respondent No. 2 - complainant filed criminal Complaint No. 299 of 1997 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Gandhidham under S. 138 of the Act. Misc. Criminal Application No. 2223 of 1997 has been filed for quashing of said proceeding. Similarly, in the case of Misc. Criminal Application No. 2218 of 1997, the petitioners gave cheque No. 706196 dated 16-9-1996 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Fort Branch, Mumbai for Rs. 67,20,000. 00. The same was also dishonoured with the endorsement "not Arranged for and Account Operated Jointly". Therefore, respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Case no. 2052 of 1996.

( 3 ) BOTH these complaints have been filed in the name of respondent No. 2, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The said complaints have been filed through and are signed by Administrative Manager Mr. Laxman Naraindas malkani.

( 4 ) MR. Unwala, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has assailed maintainability of the complaints mainly on following grounds : (i) that notices required under S. 138 of the Act were not served upon petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 prior to institution of the complaints; and (ii) that the person filing the complaints is Laxman Narain Malkani who is neither payee nor holder in due course, therefore, has no right to file the complaints. In the alternative, it is also stated that assuming that the complaints are filed on behalf of payee, then also signatory has no express authority to file the complaints.

( 5 ) TO repel these contentions, respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit-in-reply and has also produced several documents. On perusal of the documents produced with the affidavit-in-reply, it is evidently clear that notices required under S. 138 of the act were issued and served upon petitioner Nos. 2 to 11, namely, the accused and the directors of petitioner No. 1-company. In absence of express challenge to the documents, respondent No. 2 shall be deemed to have served notices in accordance with law. Consequently, the first ground of challenge does not survive at all.

( 6 ) AT the outset, I may state that subject to the merits of the contentions discussed hereinunder, a prima facie case is made out against the respondents as the cheques in questi