ORDER :

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.297 of 2020 : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside the order and judgment dated 24.10.2019 in C.A.No.111/2016 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the order and judgment dated 13.04.2016in C.C.No.1647/2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTCNo.III, Saidapet, Chennai, acquit the petitioner.

Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.305 of 2020: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and set aside the order and judgment dated 24.10.2019 in C.A.No.112/2016 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the order and judgment dated 13.04.2016 in C.C.No.1648/2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, acquit the petitioner.

These two revision petitions are preferred by the accused who was held guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Trial Court in C.C.No:1647/2006 and C.C.No.1648/2006 (on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet) and the same on appeal, confirmed by the Lower Appellant Court in C.A.No.111/2016 and C.A.No.112/2016 respectively (on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai).

2. The point for consideration in these two cases is, whether a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by a partner of the firm without authorisation is maintainable.

3. The parties involved in the lis is one and the same, therefore, common judgment is passed. For the sake of brevity, the revision petitioner and the respondent are referred as accused and complainant, as described in the complaints.

4. The brief facts leading to these revision petitions is summarised under:-

The complainant/respondent M/s Sastha Home Tech is a partnership firm trading with Iron and Steel bars. The accused/revision petitioner Ms.M.C.Baby, is a Railways Contractor. On various dates, the revision petitioner had placed orders for supply of materials and as per the orders, materials were delivered to the construction site of the revision petitioner by the complainant M/s Sastha Home Tech. When the complainant demanded repayment of dues, the accused to partially discharge the dues gave two cheques one bearing No:0159895, dated 31/12/2004 drawn on M/s Federal Bank Ltd, Thanjavur Branch, Tamilnadu, for Rs.7,41,923/- and another bearing No:390060, dated 31/03/2005 drawn on M/s Federal Bank Ltd, Puthenocruz Branch, Kerala for Rs.14,20,235/-.

5. The cheque dated 31/12/2004 for Rs.7,41,923/- was presented for collection on 24/06/2005 and same got bounced on 27/06/2005 for the reason 'insufficient of funds'. The complainant caused statutory notice on 27/07/2005 calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days. The accused received the notice on 02/08/2005. Despite receipt of the notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied within 15 days. Hence, the private complaint filed and taken on file by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C.No:1647/2006.

6. The second cheque dated 31/03/2005 for Rs.14,20,235/- was presented for collection on 04/08/2005 and same got bounced on 08/08/2005 for the reason insufficient of funds. The complainant caused statutory notice on 04/09/2005 calling upon the accused to make payment of the cheque amount within 15 days. The accused received the notice on 08/09/2005. Despite receipt of the notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor replied within 15 days. Hence, the private complaint filed and taken on file by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No:1648/2006.

7. The complainant in both the cases had filed the subject cheque, return memo, copy of the notice, postal acknowledgem