MANGAL SAIN Vs. KANCHAN SOAP AND DETERGENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order these petitions involving common questions of law are being disposed of.

(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in all the three complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the allegation that he being incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm issued payees account cheques drawn on the Bank of Baroda, which when presented through the complainants Banker bounced with the remarks that it "exceeds arrangements."

(3.) THE case of petitioner is that he alone cannot be prosecuted because the cheque issued by him was on behalf of the firm, so besides the firm, the other partners were also necessarily required to be made accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial court was not legally justified in issuing process against the petitioner, especially when in the preliminary statement recorded under section 200 Cr. P.C. there was no evidence that the petitioner was incharge of the business of the firm. In support of his contention he relies upon Cr. Appeal No.950/2006 decided on 13.9.2006, wherein it has been held that the averments in the complaint and sworn statement must show that the accused were incharge of the business of the company.