An unregistered firm is not barred from filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While specific allegations against directors/partners are required under Section 141(1) of the Act, allegations that the directors were involved in the day-to-day business of the company and had consented to the issuance of the cheques are sufficient to make out a case against them under Section 141(2) of the Act.

COMMON ORDER:

As these cases relate to a set of transactions between the same parties, which raise common questions of fact and law, the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The above 10 criminal petitions have arisen out of the issuance of five cheques. The details of the criminal petitions are as follows:

a) C.C.No.412 of 2017 had been filed against a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.68,54,758.70 ps. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case have filed Crl.P.No.12612 of 2017 and accused No.4 has filed Crl.P.No.967 of 2018.

b) C.C.No.30 of 2017 had been filed against a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case have filed Crl.P.No.12454 of 2017 and accused No.4 has filed Crl.P.No.515 of 2018.

c) C.C.No.31 of 2017 had been filed against a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case have filed Crl.P.No.12545 of 2017 and accused No.4 has filed Crl.P.No.818 of 2018.

d) C.C.No.133 of 2017 had been filed against a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.26,50,044/-. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case have filed Crl.P.No.12626 of 2017 and accused No.4 has filed Crl.P.No.763 of 2018.

e) C.C.No.29 of 2017 had been filed against a cheque issued for a sum of Rs.1,44,764/-. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case have filed Crl.P.No.12543 of 2017 and accused No.4 has filed Crl.P.No.508 of 2018.

3. The facts in all these cases, according to the complainant, are more or less similar. The 2nd respondent/complainant is a firm, which is carrying on business in dry chillies in Guntur city. The 1st accused, in the case of four cheques, is a private limited company by name M/s. Kaula Agro Goods Private Limited. The 1st accused in the case of the cheque relating to Crl.P.No.12454 of 2017 and Crl.P.No.515 of 2018 is M/s. Priyom Condiments Private Limited. The 2nd accused is the Managing Director of the 1st accused-company. The 3rd accused is said to be an additional and whole time Director of the 1st accused-company and the 4th accused is said to be an Additional Director of the 1st accused-company. Accused Nos.2 to 4 representing the 1st accused-company, are said to have approached the complainant for supply of dry chillies on credit. In this way, the complainant had supplied chillies to the 1st accused-company, on credit, and cheque bearing No.122663 dated 31.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.68,54,758.70 ps.; cheque bearing No.241505 dated 31.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-; cheque bearing No.241506 dated 31.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-; cheque bearing No.241510 dated 30.098.2016 for a sum of Rs.26,50,044/-; and cheque bearing No.122664 dated 31.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,44,764/-; were issued by the 1st accused- company to the complainant and the same were dishonoured upon presentation. Notices were sent informing the accused of the dishonour of the cheques and calling upon the accused to pay the same. Accused Nos.1 and 4 have received the notices. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 have managed to get the said notices returned. However, the said notices would have to be treated as served and the accused are liable for punishment. It is the further case of the complainant that accused Nos.2 to 4 are in day-to-day business of the 1st accused-company and the cheque that was issued in the name of the 1st accused-company was issued with the consent of accused Nos.2 to 4.

4. The grounds raised in each of these criminal petitions, by Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, are as follows:

Crl.P.No.12612 of 2017 and Crl.P.No.967 of 2018 a) The cheque issued by the accused was returned on the ground of “connectivity failure” and not on the ground of insufficiency of funds.

b) The cheque was issued to M/s. Sri Venkataramana Traders while the name of the complainant is M/s. Venkataramana Traders.

c) While the cheque was dated 31.10.2016, the authorisation to file the complaint, filed by the complainant, is dated 17.12.2016 and as such the said authorisation is invalid and can