ORDER

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in C.C.No.3219/2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (NI Act cases), Ernakulam, which has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against six accused persons, including the petitioner, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, (‘NI Act’, in short).

2. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 in the complaint that the 1^st accused is the Managing Partner of the 6th accused firm and accused 2 to 5 are its partners. In discharge of legally enforceable debt, the 1^st accused issued a cheque in favour of the 1^st respondent, which got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Although statutory lawyer notice was issued to the accused no amount has been paid. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard.

4. The petitioner’s principal contention is that, although he has been arraigned as 5^th accused in the complaint, no statutory demand notice was served on him, which is in violation of Section 138 (c) of the NI Act. InRadhakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and another [2018 (4) KLJ 64] and plethora of judgments, this Court has hel