PRATAP SINGH J.

The accused in C. C. Nos. 9, 10, 11 of 1992 and 247 of 1991 have filed these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in the said cases and for quashing the same. The short facts are : In C. C. No. 9 of 1992, the respondent in Criminal

O. P. No. 6661 of 1993 has filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein for the offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the said complaint are briefly as follows :

The complainant is manufacturing a high class variety of export fabrics. The second accused is the son of the first accused. The accused purchased high class variety of export fabrics on credit basis and towards part payment of the amount due to the complainant, they handed over two cheques dated July 15, 1991, and August 15, 1991, on July 15, 1991, promising that the said cheques will be duly honoured on the respective dates. Subsequently, the accused requested the complainant to present the cheques in the month of October, 1991. The complainant presented the cheques for collection on October 16, 1991, and October 11, 1991, respectively. They were returned on October 29, 1991, with a memo stating, "funds not sufficient" on October 31, 1991, and the complainant issued a statutory notice calling upon the accused to make the payment within 15 days. The accused refused to receive the said notice. The notice was returned with the connivance of the postman, even though they were residing at the same address. So, the notice must be deemed to have been served on them.

The person who signed and verified the complaint has been duly authorised to file the complaint. Since the accused had not paid the amount, the complaint has been filed.The allegations in the complaints in C. C. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1992 and 247 of 1991 are similar. They were also filed for the offences under section 138 of the Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of the cheques concerned in those complaints.

Mr. V. Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the drawer of the cheques is only the second accused and the first accused is not the drawer of the cheques, and that only the drawer of the cheques can be proceeded against for the offence under section 138 of the Act. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as against the first accused. The second submission of learned counsel is that the complaints are filed by Selvamani, the manager of the respective concerns in favour of which the cheques were given. The payee of the cheques is the respective concern. The payee alone can be the complainant under section 138 of the Act. In these cases, the complainant is Selvamani, manager of the concerns and hence, the complaints are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel would add that at the time of filing of the complaints, no authorisation, as has been stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint, was filed.

Hence, the complaints were returned for production of authorisation. They were again presented without authorisation letters and they were again returned and only much later, they were re-presented with authorisation letters. In those circumstances, it cannot be stated that there were complaints by proper complainants and, hence, the complaints are liable to be quashed.

Mr. Munirathina Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that K. S. Selvamani is the power of attorney agent for the four companies on whose behalf he has filed the complaints as manager and as such, the complaints are in order. He would further submit that, according to the complaints, the second accused is the authorised signatory for Pushpanchali and the first accused is the proprietor of the companywhile so, the first accused must be deemed to be the drawer of the cheques and hence he is also liable for an offence unde