Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.552/2015 is the complainant in C.C.No.1668/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam, alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, in which the 2nd respondent was originally arrayed as the sole accused therein. The cheque amount in that case is for Rs.65,230/- (Rupees Sixtyfive thousand two hundred and thirty only). The trial court had initially convicted the accused for the above said offence and had sentenced him to pay a fine with a default clause. This was challenged by the accused in Criminal Appeal and the appellate Sessions Court has confirmed the verdict of the trial court. The appellant in Crl.A.No.553/2015 is the complainant in C.C.No.1667/2009 on the file of the above said court alleging the same offence in which the 2nd respondent herein was originally arrayed as the sole accused therein. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused to pay fine which was also confirmed in appeal. The appellant in Crl.A.No.555/2015 is the complainant in C.C.No.1669/2009 before the same court alleging the same offence in which the 2nd respondent herein was originally arrayed as the sole accused. Here also the trial court had convicted and sentenced the accused to pay fine with default clause, which was confirmed in appeal. The complainant in all these cases are the same person and the original accused is also the same person in all these matters.

2. The confirmation of the conviction and sentence as mentioned above was challenged by the 2nd respondent herein by filing Crl.R.P.Nos.1704, 1705 and 1706 of 2012 before this Court by taking recourse to the remedy under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C. Before this Court it was pointed out by the accused that it has clearly come out in evidence that the dishonoured cheque in question was issued from an account maintained by the company concerned and it was not a personal account held by the sole accused and the sole accused happened to be the Managing Director of the said chit company and that it was accordingly contended that since the drawer of the cheques happened to be the company and as the company, which is the principal offender has not been arrayed as accused in these cases, the complaints are not maintainable and that the accused is entitled for acquittal. It was contended by the complainant that earlier as per the judgment dated 26.11.1999 passed by the Apex Court in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 1, the Apex Court had held that even if the dishonoured cheque has been drawn from an account maintained by a company, prosecution would lie against an individual Director of the company even without arraying the company as accused in such complaints. It was pointed out that the sole accused was the Managing Director of the company, who was also the signatory in all the 3 cheques. Later, as per the judgment dated 27.4.2012 of the Supreme Court in the case Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had held that so long as the cheque is drawn from an account maintained by the company, the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act is committed by the drawer of the cheque and so the company, being the drawer, is the principal offender to such an offence and that a criminal complaint alleging offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act can be maintained only by arraying the company, who is the drawer of the cheque, as an accused. That other Directors, who are in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the business of the company as conceived in Sec.141 of the N.I.Act, could also be arrayed as accused. Accordingly, the aforesaid Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the decision in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, has overruled the earlier view taken by the 2 Judge Bench decision as in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., reported in (20