N. ARUMUGHAM J.

On ordering notice of motion, I have heard the Bar for the respective parties for and against the impugned order passed by the XVIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in M. P. No. 711 of 1996 in C. C. No. 2720 of 1995 dated February 20, 1996, thereby discharging the respondent/accused of the offence under sections 138 and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The two grounds upon which the revision was sought to be admitted are, firstly, while filing a private complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the revision petitioner/complainant against the respondent/accused for the offence under sections 138 and 141(2) of the Act, on the basis of a cheque issued on February 18, 1995, for a sum of Rs. 2, 00, 000 which bounced subsequently followed by the issuance of legal notice with no reply. However, the learned magistrate was not correct in holding that the complaint was bad for not adding the other partners of the firm on whose behalf the said instrument was given and that, secondly, the finding of the learned magistrate that there was no enforceable claim which arose under the instrument alleged to attract the Explanation to section 138 of the Act is not correct, for the facts specifically pleaded in the counter-statement. It was contended by the Bar for the respondent that though the respondent/accused had admitted his signature in the cheque given in favour of the complainant, it really means for a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 only and not for Rs. 2, 00, 000 as found in the said cheque and that for other facts he has referred to his contentions in his counter statement. It was also contended that the non-impleading of the other partners as well as the company is fatal to the whole attempt of the complainant.Having heard the Bar for the respective parties, in the context of the impugned order with the above substratum in question, I have perused the impugned order as well as the connected case records. It is all well to know that the very plea of the complainant is that a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2, 00, 000 in question has been given signed by the respondent herein in the capacity of the managing partner of Alvitone Laboratories. The signature and the seal of the rubber stamp found in the cheque leaves were not in controversy but what has been disputed is the consideration of Rs. 2, 00, 000 found in the cheque and that is put at every stake by contending that the signatory was given only a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 and not Rs. 2, 00, 000. When the instrument of cheque manifestly refers to a particular quantum of consideration, it is for the person who asserts upon the basis of that instrument to prove every content of the same as provided by law and if such obligation is completed, then it is for the other person to adduce rebuttal evidence to disprove it on the basis of his plea and the legal evidence. This kind of legal exercise can be done only during the trial for the very reasoning that parties are at loggerheads on factual aspects and, not on the question of law. If on this ground alone the prayer for total discharge was asked for, agreeing upon the said ground I may say, granting the relief of discharge by the trial magistrate, is an erroneous approach and cannot be countenanced by any canons of procedural law and that is what happened in the instant case. It is always open for the respective parties to adduce the legal evidence before the trial court particularly in the context that the owner of the cheque, which bounced owns the cheque having given to the complainant and that the dispute rests only with regard to the quantification of the amount referred to therein. On this ground alone, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.The next ground projected before me is that the impugned order is not correct for the reasoning that the persons to be added as accused have not been made parties. A casual reading and minimum