Judgment :- PRATAP SINGH J. The accused in C. C. No. 1439 of 1992, on the file of the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to quash the proceedings in the said C. C. No. 1439 of 1992. The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as "the Act"). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The complainant is carrying on business as manufacturer of wheat products. The accused is carrying on business as general merchants and commission agents in wheat products. In the course of the business transaction between them, accounts were verified and it was found that a sum of Rs. 1, 20, 466 was due and payable by the accused to the complainant and the accused issued a cheque dated September 8, 1992, for Rs. 1, 20, 466 to discharge the said sum due and payable by the accused to the complainant. It was presented for collection. But the cheque was returned unpaid on September 12, 1992, with an endorsement "insufficient funds". The complainant informed the accused about the dishonour of the cheque. The accused assured that he would make the payment. On October 9, 1992, the accused instructed the complainant to present the said cheque and accordingly the complainant presented the said cheque for collection. It was again returned with an endorsement dated October 10, 1992, for the reason "insufficient funds". The complainant issued the statutory notice on October 13, 1992, as required under the Act. The accused received the notice on October 23, 1992. Yet he did not pay the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint for offence under section 138 of the Act. To quash the said complaint, this petition is filed.Mr. The complainant issued the statutory notice on October 13, 1992, as required under the Act. The accused received the notice on October 23, 1992. Yet he did not pay the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complaint for offence under section 138 of the Act. To quash the said complaint, this petition is filed.Mr. D. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the complainant is a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, that by virtue of article 70 of Schedule 1, Table A of the Companies Act, 1956, all cheques for money paid to the company, shall be signed, drawn, accepted, endorsed, or otherwise executed, as the case may be, by the managing agent or secretaries or treasurers of the company and that only such managing agent or secretary or treasurer would be the payee of the cheque and that a payee of the cheque alone can be the complainant for the offence under section 138 of the Act and in this case such a payee is not the complainant, but N. E. P. C. Agro Foods Ltd. is the complainant and hence the complaint is infirm and is liable to be quashed. I have carefully considered the submission made by learned counsel. To consider this submission, article 70 of Schedule I, Table A of the Companies Act, 1956, needs extraction and it reads as follows : "70. All cheques, promissory notes, drafts, hundis, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments, and all receipts for moneys paid to the company, shall be signed, drawn, accepted, endorsed, or otherwise executed, as the case may be, by the managing agent or secretaries and treasurers of the company, or where there is no managing agent or secretaries and treasurers, by such person and in such manner as the board shall from time to time by resolution determine."* By virtue of this section, such managing agent or secretary or treasurer would not become the payee but the payee is only the company. So the company can figure as a complainant for the offence under section 138 of the Act. That apart, in para 4 of the complaint, it is stated as follows : "The accused, after verifying the accounts found it to be correct and issued a cheque No. 569611 dated September 8, 1992, for Rs. So the company can figure as a complainant for the offence under section 138 of the Act. That apart, in para 4 of the complaint, it is stated as follows : "The accused, after verifying the accounts found it to be correct and issued a cheque No. 569611 dated September 8, 1992, for Rs. 1, 20, 466 drawn on the Punjab National Bank, 177, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras-600001, to discharge the said sum of Rs. 1, 20, 466 due and payable by the accused to the complainant."* These allegations would show that the complainant was the payee of the cheque. I am clear that simply because some functionary is representing a public limited company, the said functionary would not become the payee. Taking that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. D. Suresh. No other ground was urged before me. In view of the above, this petition does not deserve admission and shall stand dismissed.