ORDER : This petition is filed by accused No.2 praying to quash the proceedings pending against him in CC No.834/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and perused the material on record. 3. Accused No.1 is a partnership firm namely Sree Lakshmi Feeds, wherein accused Nos.2 to 5 are the partners of the said firm. It is stated that the complainant had exported maize to the accused on 9.12.2016 with a bill No.397 by hiring a lorry bearing No.KA-01/AE-6694 for Rs.35,800/-and goods was worth of Rs.3,59,507/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.35,800/-, the accused were supposed to pay an amount of Rs.3,21,707/-. It is stated that after receiving the goods, the accused did not make any payment, however, accused No.2 being a partner of accused No.1-Firm, issued a cheque bearing No.000218 6360130041 001416 dated 19.1.2017 in the name of complainant’s partnership trading company. When the said cheque was presented at Suco Bank for payment, the same came to be dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to make payment and in spite of service of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment, thereby, they committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque dated 19.1.2017 when presented to the bank came to be dishonoured on 21.1.2017 and therefore, the legal notice dated 15.4.2017 is beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the complaint itself is not maintainable. It is also contended that at the time of commission of offence, the petitioner herein was already retired and there is no averment to show that the petitioner was either in-charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Placing reliance on Annexure-D, Retirement Deed, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the said retirement deed, the petitioner has retired on 15.3.2017 and one Smt. K. Savitha and Sri. M. Chethanakumar have continued as partners. He therefore contends that the petitioner cannot be held liable and the entire proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. M. Chethanakumar have continued as partners. He therefore contends that the petitioner cannot be held liable and the entire proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that at the time of issuance of the cheque in question, the petitioner was in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Firm. He submits that the cheque was issued by the petitioner and now he cannot shirk his liability and say that he is not at all responsible for the conduct of the business. He contends that as on today, there is no order of stay and therefore, the proceedings before the trial Court is in progress. He contends that no grounds are made out by the petitioner and seeks to reject the petition. 6. A perusal of the complaint averments go to show that the goods worth of Rs.3,59,507/- was exported by the complainant to the accused. After deducting an amount of Rs.35,800/-, the accused was supposed to pay a sum of Rs.3,21,707/-. In this regard, it is specifically stated that, the petitioner herein being a partner of accused No.1-partnership firm, issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,21,338/-. It is stated that the said cheque was presented for payment in Suco Bank on 21.01.2017 and the same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the same to all the accused and at their request, cheque was again presented on 10.4.2017 for payment. However, again it was returned with a memo stating that “Funds Insufficient”. Therefore, legal notice came to be issued on 15.4.2017 calling upon the accused to make payment and since the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, the complaint was filed. 7. It is not in dispute that the cheque was presented for payment within the validity period. It is stated in the complaint that at the first instance, when the cheque was returned, at the request of the accused, the cheque was again presented for payment and when it was dishonoured for the second time, the legal notice was issued on 15.4.2017. It is not the case of the petitioner that when the cheque was dishonoured at the first instance, any notice was issued. Legal notice has been issued on 15.4.2017 after the cheque was dishonoured on 10.4.2017. It is not the case of the petitioner that when the cheque was dishonoured at the first instance, any notice was issued. Legal notice has been issued on 15.4.2017 after the cheque was dishonoured on 10.4.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that the issuance of legal notice is beyond the period of limitation. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Shri. Ramanathan Radha Krishnan Vs. Green Fuel Supplies Pvt. Ltd. (Crl.P.No.8031/2017, 6.3.2019), contends that the persons who are sought to be made criminally liable under Section 141 should be at the time of offence was committed, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. He contends that the petitioner has not been shown as the person in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was one of the partners of accused No.1/partnership firm. It is specifically averred in the complaint that it is the petitioner who issued the cheque which came to be dishonoured on its presentation. Hence, it cannot be said that he was not in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm when the offence was committed, even if the petitioner was retired on 15.3.2017 as per retirement deed produced at Annexure-D. The fact remains that the accused while in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm issued the cheque in question and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is open for the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the trial Court. Hence, the following : ORDER (a) Petition is dismissed. (b) IA No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and same is dismissed.