Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in revision whereby he has affirmed the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sri. Vijaynagar taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the admitted allegations of the complaint, the cheque for the bouncing whereof the complaint has been filed was issued by Brij Ratan Mundra on behalf of firm Mundra Trading Company. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's firm is a separate entity and has nothing to do with the cheque for the bouncing whereof the prosecution has been initiated in this case. He submits that as the petitioner firm has not issued the cheque in question, it cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He further submits that it is the admitted case of the complainant that for the liability of two firms the co -accused Brij Ratan Mundra issued the cheque from; his firm M/s. Mundra Trading Co. account for a sum of Rs. 4,95,000/ - which was bounced. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that as the sole account holder in this case is Brij Ratan Mundra the proprietor of the firm Mundra Trading who has undertaken the liability towards both the firms, the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but he too is not in a position to dispute the position that the cheque in question for the bouncing whereof the complaint has been filed was issued by the accused Brij Ratan Mundra as a proprietor of the firm M/s. Mundra Trading Co. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record and keeping in view the admitted position that the cheque in question for the bouncing whereof complaint has been filed was issued by the accused Brij Ratan Mundra from his firm's account and not the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioner in this case for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not permissible. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance dt. 25.2.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sri. Vijaynagar as well as the Revisional Court's order dt. 27.10.2010 are quashed to the extent of petitioner. However, the learned trial court shall proceed qua the other accused in accordance with law. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.;