2004 (5) TMI 603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the dictum in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) KLT 1. 2. The prosecutions are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the respondents/accused 3 to 5 are not signatories in the cheque. There is no contention that they are the managing partners of the firm on behalf of which the co-accused/managing partner had issued the cheque. There was of course a vague and swe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing to do with the day-to-day transactions of a firm. The whole array of partners are forced to face indictment by simply showing them also as accused persons in their capacity as partners of the firm. It is the duty of the Magistrates taking cognizance to alertly apply their mind and come to the conclusion whether sufficient circumstances are there to persuade them to entertain the threshold sati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... conclusion of the learned Magistrate that accused 3 to 5 (respondents herein) do not deserve to be proceeded against is eminently correct. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the reception of Exts.P1 and P2 at an inappropriate stage, I am satisfied that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference. The challenge raised in these revisions in these circumstances must fail. 5. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X