AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The accused in C.C. 735 of 1990 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.
Short facts are :- The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
(Which I shall hereafter refer to as the ""ACT"").
Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge two grounds viz. 1. Power Agent cannot file a complaint. 2, In the complaint, there are only two
accused and the two accused viz. Mrs. Manimegalai and Mrs. Geetha who are partners of M/s Marudhamalai Battery Service. According to the
complaint, both the accused represented the above said firm and had borrowed the amount from the complainant and for which the accused firm
was liable to pay and had issued three cheques which were the subject matter of the complaint. Learned counsel would urge that the firm is not
made an accused and that in the absence of the firm being arrayed as accused, the partners alone cannot be proceeded with for offence u/s 138 of
the Act.
I have heard Mr. Udairaj Gulecha on the above aspects.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsel. Regarding submission No. 1, I have already held in Crl.O.P. 6083/90 and
other cases today that the payee represented by the power agent can very well file a complaint for offence u/s 138 of the Act and hence this
ground is not available to the petitioner. Regarding submission No. 2, in Sheoratan Agarwal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , while
considering the criminal liability fastened on a partner because of his being a partner in a firm which had committed an offence u/s 10 of the
Essential Commodities Act, the apex court had held that they can be prosecuted without impleading the firm as accused. The language of Section
10 of the Essential Commodities Act is the same as the language of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the ration of the above
ruling applies to this case. So this ground also has to necessarily fail.
In the result, the petition fails and therefore stands dismissed.
Application dismissed.