The obligation of partners to issue public notice of firm dissolution as per Section 45 and 72 of the Indian Partnership Act,1932, and the need to examine the substance of the allegations to fulfill the requirement of Section 141 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant, who was the original complainant in N.I. Act Case No.14/2011/B on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 'B' Court, Panaji, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint and acquittal of the accused/respondents of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. The brief facts of the case which emanate from the record are that the respondents No.1 and 2 approached the appellant in the textile shop known as "Saroj Emporium" at Panaji and requested the appellant, who was one of the partners of that shop, to supply sarees, suitings', shirting, silk materials and bedsheet sets on credit. The "Saroj Emporium" being a partnership firm, the appellant required the consent of other partners and one of the partners, Mr Rupesh D. Naik present there was not willing to supply the aforesaid material on the strength of a postdated cheque. However, since the appellant knew the respondents, the appellant agreed to supply the textile material by accepting the cheque in his personal capacity and assured the partners who were present in the shop that he would transfer the amount in the account of the partnership firm, the moment the postdated cheque was realised.

The appellant also accepted the responsibility for payment of the said amount to the partnership firm "Saroj Emporium". Trusting the words and representations of respondents No.1 and 2, the appellant on 10/05/2010 supplied the aforesaid material to respondents No.1 and 2, worth ?7,50,000/-. The respondent No.2 issued a postdated cheque bearing No.775820 of 29/05/2010 drawn on the Axis Bank Limited, Panaji Branch, in the name of the appellant, which is the subject matter of the present case.

3. On presentation, the said cheque was returned dishonoured with the remark "Account closed". The payment was not made despite demand through statutory legal notice and ultimately the complaint in question was filed on 19/01/2011 before the Trial Court.

4. The appellant, in order to prove his case against the respondents, examined three witnesses and placed reliance on documentary evidence which was duly exhibited and referred to in detail by the learned Trial Court. After concluding the recording of evidence led by the appellants, statements of the respondents No.1 and 2 were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by the learned Trial Court wherein the respondents claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. Respondents No.1 and 2 also led evidence in their defence. On completion of these proceedings before the Trial Court, final arguments were heard. Consequently, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents.

5. The reasons for acquitting the respondent No.1 were that he was not partner of the firm 'Expore' at any time nor was he a signatory to the cheque in question and as he was not the drawer of the cheque and the complaint under Section 138 of the Act would not lie against him. Insofar as the respondent No.2 is concerned, it is stated that though he had issued the disputed cheque, the cheque was issued on behalf of the partnership firm 'Expore' but the same was issued after dissolution of the firm and that there cannot be any legally enforceable liability of a non-existent partnership firm. Further, there were no averments in the complaint that the accused were in charge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm.

6. Heard Mr. V.P. Thali, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Monteiro, learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment, evidence, grounds in appeal memo and material on record.

7. Before going into the rival contentions of the parties, it must be noticed that the respondent No.2 had admitted his signature on the cheque in question. It is also seen from record that the respondent No.2 had signed the cheque in question in the capacity of a partner of the respondent-firm 'Ex