Y VENKATA REDDY Vs. JAGADAMBA ENTERPRISES HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties are the same and as common question of law has arisen for consideration in all these criminal revision cases, they can be disposed of together.

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in as many as 14 cases filed against him by the 1st respondent herein under Section 138 of the NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 mentioning inter alia that during the course of business transaction between the complainant and the accused the accused took milk products from the complainant on credit basis on different occasions and in discharge of the legally enforceable debt the accused issued different cheques to the complainant on different dates and that when those cheques having been presented for encashment with the banker were dishonoured and that even when the requisite legal notices were issued to the accused within the stipulated time demanding payment, he having been received those notices failed to pay the amounts covered by those cheques and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

(3.) Pursuant to summons issued by the Court after taking cognizance, the accused appeared in all those cases. He then filed separate petitions in each case under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to discharge him. Inter alia in those petitions initially he had taken objections that the complaints, having been filed by the company through its Manager, who has not been properly authorised to represent the said company, which is a proprietary concern, were not maintainable. Another objection taken was that M/s. Suruchi Milk Products Private Limited was having alleged transactions with the complainant and without impleading the said company he was impleaded in his individual capacity as an accused which was not proper. The twin objections taken by him while seeking to discharge have not been found favour with by the Court below which dismissed eventually all those petitions after enquiry. The petitioner is now assailing those orders before this Court in these revision cases.