Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
MALAI SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Crl. R.C. No. 354 of 2001, Crl, R.P. No. 353 of 2001
and Crl. M.P. Nos. 1718-1719 of 2001
Decided on 14.8.2001.
B. SHAMBU KUMAR
versus
RAGHVENDRA STEELS LTD., REP. BY ITS CHIEF
ACCOUNTANT SHANKAR
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. Muralidharan, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. S. Venkatesan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Gazette Notification - Partnership Retirement - The court considered the validity of a Gazette notification indicating the retirement of the petitioner from a partnership and its impact on a case involving a cheque issued after the retirement date. The court held that the Gazette notification, being a public document, did not require further proof and could be taken judicial notice of at any time by the courts. As the petitioner had retired from the partnership before the issuance of the cheque, the court allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision after his application for discharge was rejected. The main contention was the petitioner's retirement from the partnership before the date of the cheque.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Gazette notification of the petitioner's retirement from the partnership, a public document, did not require further proof and could be taken judicial notice of at any time by the courts. As the petitioner had retired from the partnership before the issuance of the cheque, the court allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the case.
Issues: Validity of Gazette notification indicating partnership retirement and its impact on the case involving a cheque issued after the retirement date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a Gazette notification, being a public document, did not require further proof and could be taken judicial notice of at any time by the courts. As the petitioner had retired from the partnership before the issuance of the cheque, the court allowed the petition and discharged the petitioner from the case.
Final Decision: The petition stands allowed, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside, and the petitioner is discharged from the case.
1. The petitioner is one of the accused in the case. His application for discharge was rejected. Hence, this revision has been filed.
2. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the date of the cheque was only 31.12.1998, the petitioner retired from partnership even earlier to that. In support of his contention, he presented a Gazette notification which says that B. Shambu Kumar retired from the partnership of Salem Steels Limited with effect from 30.9.1998.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this Gazette notification has to be proved before the Trial Court and then only the petitioner can get the benefit of the Gazette notification. In support of his contention, he relies on the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Bharal Kumar Modi v. Pennar Peterson Securities Limited, 2000 CL.C. I wherein it was held that form No. 32 produced by the accused and the other documents kept at the Registrar of Companies under the Act, though admissible in evidence ought to be proved in trial. Insofar as the Gazette notification is concerned, they are public documents and they can be taken judicial notice of at any time by the Courts concerned. The veracity of the Gazette notification has not been disputed. Once it has been notified in the Official Gazette that the petitioner ceased to be a partner with effect from 30.9.1998 it has to be taken note of by this Court also. Admittedly, the issuance of the cheque was dated 31.12.1998. At least three months prior to the issuance of the cheque, the petitioner has retired from the partnership and the Gazette notification was also dated 22.10.1998. A Gazette notification need not require any further proof. Therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioner to go and face the trial.
4. Therefore, the petition stands allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the petitioner is hereby discharged from the case, Crl. M.P. Nos. 1718 and 1719 of 2001 are closed.
Petition allowed.
