(1.) THE above two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/third accused in S.T.C. Nos. 1396 and 894 of 1998 respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udumalpet, and he filed these revisions aggrieved against the orders passed in C.M.P. Nos. 6230 and 5918 of 1998 respectively, dated October 14, 1998.
(2.) THE case in brief for disposal of both the revision petitions is as follows : THE respondent filed two complaints under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act"), against three accused and the petitioner is the third accused. THE first accused is the firm and the company issued a cheque dated January 30, 1998, of M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Tiruppur, for Rs. 1, 57, 984 in favour of the complainant in one case. Similarly in the other case also on March 15, 1998, a cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs was issued by the second accused in the capacity of the partner in the accused firm. When both the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured and returned on the ground of "insufficient funds".
(3.) IT is not stated in the complaints that the third accused is in charge of the day-to-day administration of the company. Unfortunately the court below has dismissed the applications filed by the third accused on the ground that this matter can be decided only in the course of trial. Simply because there is a sole document to show that the third accused had received the goods for and on behalf of the first accused-company on one occasion, it will not establish that the third accused had active role in the day-to-day work of the first accused-company.Learned counsel for the third accused relied on the decision reported in Col. R. S. Aggarwal, M.D., Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. 1998 1 LW (Crl.) 24 wherein it was held that to bring the persons within the purview of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act there must be an allegation prima facie disclosing the commission of offence as regards persons shown as accused. Reliance is also placed upon another decision in Coronation Printing Ink Manufacturing Company v. Elgi Finance Ltd., that partners who are not responsible for day-to-day affairs of accused firm or company need not be arrayed as accused. These two decisions are applicable to the case on hand.