Judgment :- A. RAMAMURTHI, J. The petitioner/fourth accused in C.C. No. 10125 of 1998 and C.C. No. 10126 of 1998, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has preferred these two revision petitions aggrieved against the common order passed in Crl. M.Ps. Nos. 1812 of 1999 and 1078 of 1999, dated August 24, 1999. The case in brief for the disposal of both the revision petitions is as follows : The respondent filed two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the four accused and the petitioner is the fourth accused in these two cases. The fourth accused filed petitions under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for discharging on the ground that he had been inducted as a director of the first accused company only from June 1, 1998. The cheques in question were issued by the second accused at the time of taking loan by the first accused. The fourth accused was neither the managing director nor the director and he was never in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company at the time of issue of the cheques. The other directors have not been made party to these cases. One Mr. Xavier, who was then joint managing director, has also not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The respondent resisted the applications, stating that the petitioner is an ex-employee much before the cheques were issued and was looking after the administration, who had been admittedly director of the first accused company as on June 1, 1998, and continued to look after the day-to-day affairs of the company and it was only during his period, the cheques were presented on October 6, 1998, and October 13, 1998. As and when the complainant comes to know the actual status of Mr. Xavier in the affairs of the company, definitely to would take steps to implead him. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his contention. Moreover, he is free to raise these points at any time during the trial. The respondent must have an opportunity to meet these points.After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed these petitions and aggrieved against the common order, these two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/fourth accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the court below is not proper and correct. The respondent must have an opportunity to meet these points.After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed these petitions and aggrieved against the common order, these two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/fourth accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the court below is not proper and correct. No liability can be fastened or complaint can be initiated and proceeded against the person, who was not the director of the company when the cheque was drawn. The court below ought to have allowed the petitions filed by the petitioner for discharge and without application of mind, the common order has been passed. However, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the question whether the petitioner is also liable or not can be considered only at the time of trial and the materials now projected by the petitioner are not sufficient to discharge. Heard learned counsel for both sides. The revision petitioner is the fourth accused in both the cases. The main contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was inducted as a director in the first accused company only on June 1, 1998, whereas the cheques in question were issued only on May 15, 1998. Paragraph 8 of the complaint indicates that the second accused on behalf of the first accused company with the knowledge of the third and fourth accused had issued two cheques for Rs. 10, 00, 000 each dated April 25, 1998, and May 15, 1998. The cheques were presented for encashment on October 13, 1998 and they were dishonoured. Paragraph 13 of the complaint also discloses that all the accused were present at the time of the above transaction and all the accused are involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and, as such, they are jointly and severally liable. It is manifestly clear that the fourth accused was not the director when the cheques in question were issued. He is not a signatory to the cheques also. Simply because the petitioner was also present at the time of the issue of the cheques, he cannot be made liable relating to the dishonour of the cheques. It is manifestly clear that the fourth accused was not the director when the cheques in question were issued. He is not a signatory to the cheques also. Simply because the petitioner was also present at the time of the issue of the cheques, he cannot be made liable relating to the dishonour of the cheques. The xerox copy of Form 32 filed in the case also indicates that the petitioner was inducted as director only on June 1, 1998; but on the date when the cheque had been subjected to dishonour, the petitioner was the director of the company. It is only because of this, the trial court came to the conclusion that when the cause of action arose, the petitioner was the director and, as such, it is a matter to be considered only in the course of trial. It is settled position of law that although the petitioner was not a director when the cheque was issued, he was a director when the cheque was dishonoured, which gave cause of action to the respondent to file the complaint after issue of statutory notice. Under the circumstance, the order passed by the trial court is proper and correct and there is no illegality or infirmity, calling for interference.For the reasons stated above, these revision petitions fail and, accordingly, they are dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to raise these points before the trial court and the trial court is directed to dispose of the cases uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. Consequently, Crl. M.Ps. Nos. 8048 to 8052 of 1999 are also dismissed.