IMPORTANT POINT
Since the receipt of notice in the case of firm by even one partner habitually acting for the business of the firm operates as a notice to the firm the firm or other partners cannot set up the ignorance of notice as a defence in Criminal Complaint U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

R.L. Gupta, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) against an order dated 14.1.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. R. No. 36 of 1991. After recording evidence in the complaint filed by respondent No.1, the learned Magistrate was of the view that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and others under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act The petitioners filed a revision against that order. In the light of some authorities, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the summoning order in this case was an interlocutory order, and so in view of the bar of section 397(2) of the Code, the revision was not maintainable.

2. The complaint against the petitioners, their husbands and the firm M/s. Notraj Industries of which all four of them were alleged to be partners, stated that the complainant was a Public Limited Co. having its registered office at Village Bhola Pur, District Ludhiana and one V.D. Souza was its Branch Manager holding a power of attorney. The firm of the petitioners and their husbands had business dealings with the Complainant. The husbands were alleged to be managing affairs of the firm while the petitioners were alleged to be looking after the supervision of the business. Thus all of them at all relevant times were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day business of the accused firm including placing of orders, making payments and issuing cheques. On 27.8.1990 a sum of Rs. 3,27,598/- was due and payable by the firm on account of goods supplied to them from time to, time. In acknowledgement of its liability to pay the aforesaid debt, the accused firm issued cheque No. 313817 dated 27.8.1990 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for that amount in favour of the Complainant. On presentment of the cheque for collection, it was returned unpaid with the banker's endorsement "Exceeds Arrangement". Relevant documents are attached with the complaint. Immediately on learning about the dishonour of the cheque, complainant wrote a letter on 29.8.1990 bringing to the notice of the accused the dishonour of the cheque and ai1dng them to make payment at the earliest. A copy of this notice is also attached with the complaint. The accused persons requested few days which was agreed to by the complainant. When they failed to pay the amount, a reminder dated 5.11.1990 was issued by the complainant. The accused promised to send another cheque. But no cheque was received till 12.11.1990 when another reminder was issued. The complainant received two cheques on 15.11.1990 under a common registered cover from the husbands of the petitioners, one for the amount in question and the other for the amount due to the complainant on account of goods supplied to M/s. Notraj Paper Converter, another firm of the petitioners and their husbands. On presentment the cheque for the amount due in this complaint was again dishonoured with the banker's comments "Exceeds Arrangement". This fact was again brought to the notice of the accused persons and 'they were again called upon to make the, payment vide registered notice dated 27.11.1990 within 15 days of the receipt of the notice failing which there was no way except the present complaint.

3. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, no notice was received by them and simply because notice was allegedly sent to their husbands would be no ground to make the petitioners liable for the payment of the amount of the dishonoured cheques. There is no doubt that if it can be held that there is no notice to the petitioners or no notice can be inferred in the case of the petitioners, it may be possible to say that criminal complaint under Sections 138 read with 141 of the Neg