Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
hon'ble Malai Subramanian, J.
Crl. R. C. No. 355 of 2001, Crl. R. P. No. 354 of 2001 and Crl. MPs. 1720 and 1721/2001
Decided on 14.8.2001
Deepak Gupta
versus
M/s. Raghavendra Steels Ltd.
The production of Form 'A' from the Registrar of Firms was deemed sufficient to establish the partnership, and the petitioner was discharged from the case based on this ground.
Headnote:
Discharge Application - Partnership Firm - The court held that the petitioner, though stated to be a partner of the accused No. 1 firm, was not a partner as per the Form 'A' issued by the Registrar of Firms. The production of Form 'A' was deemed sufficient to establish the partnership, and the petitioner was discharged from the case based on this ground.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for discharge from the case, claiming to be falsely implicated as a partner of the accused No. 1 firm. The trial Court rejected the application, leading to this revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not a partner of the firm as per the Form 'A' issued by the Registrar of Firms, and therefore need not face the trial unnecessarily. The order of the learned Magistrate was set aside, and the revision was allowed.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged partnership in the firm, the validity of the notice served on the partnership firm, and the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The production of Form 'A' was deemed sufficient to establish the partnership, and the court held that the petitioner need not face the trial based on this ground alone.
Final Decision: The order of the learned Magistrate was set aside, and the revision was allowed. Crl. M. P. Nos. 1720 and 1721 of 2001 were closed.
1. The petitioner filed an application for discharge from the case. It was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petition submits that, though the petitioners was stated to be a partner of the accused No. 1 firm, the petitioner is not a partner at all and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of his contention, he also relies on Form "A" issued by the Registrar of Firms. A certified copy of the Form "A" reveals that from the year 1983 till 2000, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the list of partners. Therefore, on the sole ground, the petitioner need not be made to face the trial unnecessarily.
3. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, relies on ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2000 C.L. O. 38 "Bharat Kumar Modi v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd". which would say that Form 32 kept by the Registrar of Companies, though admissible in evidence, has to be proved in trial. To establish that a particular person is a partner of a firm, mere production of Form "A" is more than sufficient. This is also a public document. It requires no further proof.
4. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served on the partnership firm itself. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that a telegram was sent to all the partners including the firm, demanding the amount due by way of cheque which bounced. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mere sending of telegram cannot be said to be a valid notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This point is left open because in this case, already on the basis of Form A it has been clearly held that the petitioner was not a partner on the date of issuance of the cheque and on that score alone the petitioner is entitle to succeed. With the result, the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the revision stands allowed. Crl. M. P. Nos. 1720 and 1721 of 2001 are closed.
