1. By this common order these petitions involving common questions of law are being disposed of. 2. The petitioner is an accused in all the three complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the allegation that he being incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm issued payees account cheques drawn on the Bank of Baroda, which when presented through the complainants Banker bounced with the remarks that it "exceeds arrangements." 3. The case of petitioner is that he alone cannot be prosecuted because the cheque issued by him was on behalf of the firm, so besides the firm, the other partners were also necessarily required to be made accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial court was not legally justified in issuing process against the petitioner, especially when in the preliminary statement recorded under section 200 Cr. P.C. there was no evidence that the petitioner was incharge of the business of the firm. In support of his contention he relies upon Cr. Appeal No.950/2006 decided on 13.9.2006, wherein it has been held that the averments in the complaint and sworn statement must show that the accused were incharge of the business of the company. 4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner has no merit. As the petitioner being drawer of the Cheque can independently be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138, the provisions contained in Section 141 Negotiation Instrument Act, which deals with the vicarious liability of other partners of the firm are not applicable. It is only where other partners of the firm are sought to be prosecuted, who may not have actually issued the Cheque on account of their vicarious liability in terms of Section 141, it is necessary for the complainant to state in the complaint and preliminary evidence that such partner being incharge of the business of the firm was also liable. 5. 5. In S.M.S Pharmacetical Ltd. vs. Neeta Balla (2005) 8 SCC 89, their Lordships while considering the question (C) which reads : "(c) Even if it is held that specific averments are necessary, whether in the absence of such averments the signatory of the cheque and or the managing directors or joint managing director who admittedly would be in charge of the company and responsible to the company for conduct of its business could be proceeded against." held as follows : "The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the managing director or joint managing director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such position in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as managing director or joint managing director, these persons are in charge of any responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonored is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under sub-section (2) of Section 141." 6. As in the present case the petitioner is being sued for his liability arising out of the issuance of cheque by himself, therefore, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for petitioner. The case relied upon by learned counsel in support of his contention has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in these petitions. These are as such dismissed along with connected CMPs.