ORDER : The petitioner, who is an accused in S.T.C.No.256, 257, 255 of 2014 and S.T.C.No.26 of 2015 respectively on the file of the concerned Court, would submit that the respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the petitioner herein, in order to discharge his liability, issued a cheque, which, on presentation for encashment, was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' in the following cases:-. S.N Crl. O.P. (MD) No. S.T.C. No Amount Borrowed Rs. Cheque No. & Date Cheque Returned Notice Sent on Notice Acknowledgement Compliant date. 1 23514/14 256/14 2,00,000 532725 12.6.14 12.08.13 20.08.13 09.09.13 2 23625/14 257/14 4,50,000 532677 29.7.13 12.08.13 20.08.13 09.09.13 3 152/15 255/14 10,00,000 538421 03.6.13 12.08.13 20.08.13 09.09.13 4 5086/14 26/14 5,00,000 481753 29.7.15 12.08.13 20.08.13 09.09.13 2. After issuing a statutory notice, the complainant filed a complainant against the accused. The petitioners / accused have raised the following points for quashing the cases:- a) That cheque has not been given to the respondent/complainant that has been given to one Natarajan; b) Date of borrowal has not been mentioned c) Though the accused is shown as Chairman of the College, he was not impleaded in an independent capacity. d) Even though the statutory notice has been issued under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that has not been received by him, since he has been receiving so many correspondences from various educational institutions. Though the notice has been addressed to the Chairman, it was received by the staff and the same was not placed before him. Hence, he is unable to give a reply. With the above reasons, he prays for quash the same. 3. Resisting the same, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has borrowed money and notice was also sent with all details as stated in the complaint. Non-mentioning of the date of borrowal will not vitiate the proceedings. He further submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to prove as to whether the cheque has been issued to Natrarajan at the time of trial and it is only the question of facts. Non-mentioning of the date of borrowal will not vitiate the proceedings. He further submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to prove as to whether the cheque has been issued to Natrarajan at the time of trial and it is only the question of facts. He further submits that since the amount has been borrowed by the Chairman, there is no necessity for impleading him in an individual capacity and therefore, notice has been sent to the Sun College of Engineering and Technology, rep. by its Chairman, which was also received by him. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the petitions. 4. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that admittedly, the petitioner is the Chairman of the College and the cheque has been signed by the petitioner as Chairman of the College. The Negotiable Instruments Act is a special enactment. In that it was specifically mentioned once the issuance of cheque and the signature in the cheque have been admitted, there shall be a presumption available in favour of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is true that the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is rebuttable presumption and the burden is shifted to the shoulders of the respondent to prove that the cheque has been issued for legally liable. The question as to whether the cheque has been issued to Natarajan or issued to discharge the liability can be decided only at the time of trial. It is not a ground to quash the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is necessary that the notice must contained the particulars regarding the date of cheque, date of return as contemplated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that C. Thayapara has not been impleaded personally and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions. Admittedly, C. Thayapara is the Chairman of the College and borrowed money. In such circumstances, non-impleading of the person in an individual capacity is not fatal. It is true that reply to the notice is not mandatory. The explanation is not accepted because of the acknowledgement card and the seal of the college has been mentioned there. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the cases. 7. In such circumstances, non-impleading of the person in an individual capacity is not fatal. It is true that reply to the notice is not mandatory. The explanation is not accepted because of the acknowledgement card and the seal of the college has been mentioned there. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the cases. 7. Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial level) No.I, Nagercoil is directed to dispose of the S.T.C cases mentioned above within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Court. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court (Magisterial level) No.I, Nagercoil is directed to consider the request of the petitioner to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner on filing necessary application and pass orders on the same on merits. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.