VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Section 482 of Cr. PC, the proceedings in CCNo. 830 of 1996 on the file of Vth Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad, in which petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 3 are sought to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: The complainant is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act with its registered office at Sholapur, maharashtra. They are engaged in the business of supply and sale of drugs and pharmaceuticals. Accused No. 1 is a proprietary firm by name M/s. Mala Impex pharama situated at Hyderabad. Accused no. 2 Ms. Mala Jain is the proprietor of the accused No. l firm. Accused No. 3 M/s. Karan Khem Pharma is firm a represented by its authorised signatory Mr. Raj Karan. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the customers of the complainant who place an order through accused No. 3 on 15-4-1998 to the complainant company for purchase of 100 kgs. , of norfloxacin. The total bill amount of rs. 1,80,000/- was to be paid within 15 days. The complainant delivered the goods to accused No. l. After receiving the goods, accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. 1 issued a cheque for Rs. 1,80,000/- which includes cost of the material and excise duty payable. ( 4 ) THE cheque dated 25-4-1998 was presented on 28-4-1998 but it bounced. On being informed, accused No. 2 asked for time for payment of the cheque. The cheque was again presented on 19-5-1998. But it was again returned unpaid. The accused again promised to arrange payment and asked the complainant to present the cheque in the 2nd week of June, 1998. At the request of accused No. 1, the cheque was presented on 12-6-1998 but it was returned together with return memo dated 15-6-1998 with an endorsement that the funds were insufficient. ( 5 ) A notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act was duly issued to the accused. Notice addressed to accused Nos. 1 and 2 was not returned and complaint was duly lodged with the postal authorities. However, notice was served on accused No. 3 on 29-6-1998. As no payment was made within the prescribed period, the complaint has been lodged. ( 6 ) THE petitioner herein is accused No. 3. Notice addressed to accused Nos. 1 and 2 was not returned and complaint was duly lodged with the postal authorities. However, notice was served on accused No. 3 on 29-6-1998. As no payment was made within the prescribed period, the complaint has been lodged. ( 6 ) THE petitioner herein is accused No. 3. Admittedly, the goods were supplied by the complainant firm to accused No. l firm represented by accused No. 2. The cheque was signed and issued by accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. l firm. Obviously, the cheque was issued on the account maintained by accused No. l firm. ( 7 ) FOR inviting criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Industruments act, it is necessary to show that (i) the cheque in question should have been drawn by the accused on account maintained by him with a banker; (ii) the cheque in question should have been issued by the accused to the complainant for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability; (iii) the cheque should have been returned by the bank unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. ( 8 ) IT is further necessary to show as contemplated under proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that (a) the cheque has been presented with the bank within the period of six months from the date on which it has been drawn: (b) that the payee or the holder in due course made a demand for payment of money by giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of intimation regarding dishonour of the cheque, and (c) the drawer of such cheque should have failed to make the payment of such amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. ( 9 ) IT is also necessary to show that the debt or the other liability is legally enforceable. ( 10 ) IN this case, there is no grievance by the petitioner that the requirement under proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act have not been complied with. ( 9 ) IT is also necessary to show that the debt or the other liability is legally enforceable. ( 10 ) IN this case, there is no grievance by the petitioner that the requirement under proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act have not been complied with. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in this, case, the basic requirement that the cheque should have been drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker is not satisfied. It is pertinent to note here that the cheque was admittedly drawn by accused No. 2 on behalf of accused No. 1 firm. Obviously, the cheque in question was drawn on the account maintained by accused No. 1 firm. As far as accused No. 3 is concerned, there is nothing to show that he has anything to do with accused No. l firm. It cannot be said that accused No. 3, the petitioner herein, had drawn any cheque on any account maintained by him. The mere fact that the order for the purpose of the goods by accused Nos. 1 and 2 was placed through the petitioner herein, who was their authorised agent or intermediary in itself does not fasten any criminal liability on the petitioner herein. ( 12 ) SECTION 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act obviously cannot be invoked inasmuch as the petitioner, accused No. 3 is not alleged to be and cannot be said to be in-charge of and responsible to the accused no. l firm for the conduct of business of the said firm. The only allegation against accused No. 3 is that the order for supply of material by accused No. l firm was routed through accused No. 3, who can at best be construed as their agent. A mere intermediary or agent of a firm, who places orders for the firm with others for supply of any goods can by no stretch of imagination be said to be in-charge of and responsible to the affairs of the said firm on whose behalf he placed the order. ( 13 ) IT is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dwell into the question whether the petitioner as an agent of the complainant or otherwise has any liability in respect of the amount payable by accused nos. ( 13 ) IT is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dwell into the question whether the petitioner as an agent of the complainant or otherwise has any liability in respect of the amount payable by accused nos. 1 and 2 to the complainant towards goods received by them. If at all there is any liability, it is for the complainant to seek any remedy against the petitioner, if so advised, in the appropriate Court of law. As far as criminal liablity under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, there is no way to saddle the petitioner with such liability inasmuch as the essential requirement under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque should have been issued by the accused on an account maintained by him to discharge any debt or other liability has not been satisfied. ( 14 ) UNDER the circumstances, it would be futile to continue the criminal proceedings against petitioner-accused No. 3. The petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 830 of 1998 on the file of the vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as far as petitioner-accused No. 3 is concerned stand quashed.