K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 290/2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Cuddapah. ( 2 ) THE briefs that are necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the accused-company owed a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant-company on account of milk supplied by the latter to the former, that the cheque bearing No. 441183, dated 29-4-2002, for Rs. 6 lakhs issued by the accused-company to the complainant-company was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, that the complainant again presented the cheque in the bank and it was dishonoured yet again on 21-8-2002 for the same reason, that the complainant issued a notice demanding the accused to pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days, and that in spite of receiving the notice, the accused did not pay the same, and hence the complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was registered as C. C. No. 290/2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Cuddapah. The accused filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in that case. ( 3 ) UNDER Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in order to make a person liable, three conditions have to be satisfied, as per the proviso to that Section. They are- (1) the cheque is presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier, (2) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for payment of the amount of money by giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of the intimation by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid, and (3) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of the said notice. However, the explanation to that Section says that the debt or other liability for the purpose of the Section means legally enforceable debt or other liability. ( 4 ) AS seen from the complaint, the complainant did milk business with the accused-company namely Ravileela Dairy Products Ltd. , and in that transaction, the accused-company became due to a tune of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant-company. Therefore, the complainant has got a right to recover the amount through process of the Court. To discharge the debt, the accused gave the cheque in question on 29-4-2002, but it was ultimately returned unpaid with an endorsement insufficient funds . ( 5 ) A cheque can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date of its issue or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. When the cheque was returned for want of funds, the cause of action starts from the date of issuance of a notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque. After receipt of notice by the accused, he has to pay the amount within 15 days. If the amount is not paid, then the complainant has got a right to file a complaint to prosecute the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ( 6 ) THE first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the accused is p. Srinivasa Reddy , and not m. Sreenivasa Reddy as stated in the notice and also in the complaint. The defect, if any, is only with regard to the surname of the accused. There is no dispute about the identity of the accused as Managing Director of Ravileela Granites Pvt. Ltd. This is only a technical defect which can be rectified. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent stated that steps have already been taken to get the surname of the accused corrected in the complaint. On the mere ground of wrong mentioning of the surname of the accused, the complaint cannot be dismissed, inasmuch as the identity of the accused as the Managing Director of Ravileela Granites Pvt. Ltd. , is not in dispute. On the mere ground of wrong mentioning of the surname of the accused, the complaint cannot be dismissed, inasmuch as the identity of the accused as the Managing Director of Ravileela Granites Pvt. Ltd. , is not in dispute. Whether the accused is the Managing Director or not is to be decided at the time of trial, but in the complaint it is stated that the accused is the Director of Ravileela Dairy Products Ltd. , which had business transactions in milk with the complainant. ( 7 ) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque in question was issued by the accused on behalf of M/s. Futura Granites Pvt. Ltd. , which had no dealings with the complainant-company and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this count. This Court is unable to accept the said contention, for the reason that there is a specific averment in the complaint that the cheque in question was issued by the accused on behalf of M/s. Futura Granites Pvt. Ltd. , as there were no sufficient funds in the account of Ravileela Dairy Products Ltd. It is also alleged that the accused is the Director of Ravileela Dairy Products Ltd. , and Managing Director of Ravileela Granities Pvt. Ltd. , and Futura Granites Pvt. Ltd. Though the cheque in question was issued by the accused as the authorized signatory of M/s. Futura Granites Pvt. Ltd. , it was issued to Jay Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. , of which the complainant is the Managing Director, in the discharge of legally enforceable debt, because sufficient funds were not available in the account of Ravileela Dairy Products Ltd. , with which the complainant had business transactions in milk. So, in those circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no legal impediment in prosecuting the accused for the dishonour of the cheque issued by him and the allegations in the complaint clearly reveal the reason for which the accused had to issue the cheque on behalf of Futura Granites Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merits at this stage. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, any observations made in this order are only for the limited purpose of deciding the petition and shall not have any bearing or effect on the trial. Petition dismissed.