The responsibility of a proprietorship concern, whether represented by the proprietor or proprietrix, and the need for strong and cogent evidence to arraign additional accused under Sec. 319 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner in the subject petition calls in question order dtd. 28/2/2022 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.98 of 2021 whereby the learned Sessions Judge upturns the order dtd. 8/2/2021 passed by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 319 of the CrPC.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:- The petitioner/complainant claims to be a leading name in the manufacture of sheet metal fabricated products and transformer tanks for overseas and domestic market to meet specific needs of customers and claims to have spread all over the world. The petitioner and one R.N.Banerji and Son entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU' for short) on 2/2/2006, in terms of which R.N.Banerji and Son were appointed as marketing associates of the petitioner and were required to market and install resistant doors - 'System Schroders' door and clean room and duct door manufactured by the complainant. It is the claim of the petitioner that in terms of MoU, R.N.Banerji and Son became responsible for marketing, promotion, after service installation etc. Subsequent to signing of MoU, one Mr. Jolly Banerji began placing purchase orders in the name of 'RNB Design Arc Systems' ('RNB' for short) and due to the long standing business relationship between the petitioner and R.N.Banerji and Son, the petitioner claims to have immediately agreed to the arrangement and continued to make supplies despite the change of name of the concern and claimed that all transactions and correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and Jolly Banerji.

3. It is the further claim of the petitioner that despite the change of name of the proprietary concern Jolly Banerji continued to represent himself as the proprietor of RNB. Since all correspondences happened between Jolly Banerji and the petitioner, the petitioner claims to have bona fide believed that Jolly Banerji was the proprietor of RNB and at no point in time Jolly Banerji disclosed that he was not the proprietor but his wife Rupa Banerji was the proprietrix of RNB and he was only representing Rupa Banerji.

4. The petitioner claims to have supplied metal doors to RNB under various invoices and RNB had acknowledged the receipt of those metal doors. Certain amount became outstanding in terms of invoices. In furtherance of the same, RNB delivered various cheques to the petitioner in discharge of its alleged liability which included a cheque bearing No.165482 dtd. 17/8/2016 which is the subject matter of the present petition. Since there are 23 connected petitions, the amount and the instrument involved in the transaction would differ; that need not be elaborated, as the issue in the case at hand does not concern the instrument.

5. The cheques having been presented were dishonoured or unpaid by the banker with an endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer". Pursuant to such endorsement, a notice came to be issued to the proprietary concern and a reply was also given by the RNB, after which, the petitioner in all these cases invoked Sec. 200 of the CrPC and registered private complaints for offences punishable under Ss. 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 ('the Act' for short). Cognizance was taken on the offences and the matter was set for trial. It is what happens during the trial that concerns these petitions.

6. At the time when the prosecution witnesses were being examined it comes to the notice of the petitioner that RNB was represented by Mrs. Rupa Banerji as proprietrix in O.S.No.6813 of 2016 and in O.S. No. 7825 of 2016 RNB was represented by Jolly Banerji as its proprietor. This generated obfuscation with the petitioner herein and therefore, it filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Sec. 319 of the CrPC to include Mrs. Rupa Banerji as an accused in the case at hand. Th