K KATHIRVEL Vs. KIRORIMAL KASIRAM, REP BY ITS MANAGER H KAMALESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the fact that the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 in all the petitions and 3rd petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11884 of 2009 and the sole respondent are one and the same in all the cases with similar issues both factual and legal, they have been taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE respondent is the complainant, who has preferred complaints under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before various Judicial Magistrate Courts at Madurai.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 in all the cases and third petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11084 of 2009, submitted that merely because the petitioners are partners of the 1st accused firm, they cannot be made as accused and there is no specific averment or allegation as to the part played by the petitioners herein in respect of day to day business affairs of the 1st accused firm and there is also no evidence to show that the petitioners were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant point of time. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions: