IMPORTANT POINT
In partnership law, partners are jointly and severally liable for the firm's obligations, and notice to partners constitutes notice to the partnership firm, distinguishing it from corporate entities.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in Cr. M.P. No. 251 of 2023 in C.C. No. 3 of 2015 dated 09.03.2023 set aside the same and allow this revision petition.

1. This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in Cr. M.P. No. 251 of 2023 in C.C. No. 3 of 2015 dated 09.03.2023.

2. The accused in C.C. No. 3 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, filed this petition challenging the impugned order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 251 of 2023 dated 09.03.2023 wherein, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. to implead the firm namely ‘Sweety Garments’ as a party. The petitioner and the other accused are the partners in the firm of ‘Sweety Garments’. They issued a cheque to discharge their liability under the Employees Provident Fund Act. The said cheque was ‘dishonoured’ and the same was issued as contribution of 20 labours. Hence, the respondent initiated a proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner and other accused. Inadvertently, the said partnership firm was not impleaded as a party. So, the respondent filed a petition in Cr. M.P. No. 251 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. to implead the partnership firm as a party. The said petition was contested by the petitioner by filing counter stating that after the completion of trial, the petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable and the same was also barred by limitation and sought for dismissal of the petition. The learned trial Judge, after considering the fact that the petitioner and other accused issued a cheque on behalf of the partnership firm namely, the ‘Sweety Garments’ and also considered the welfare of 20 labourers, allowed the application by passing the impugned order dated 09.03.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per latest judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2022 Live Law SC 971, the order of the learned trial Judge is not sustainable.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the petitioner reported in 2022 Live Law SC 971, is not applicable to the present facts of the case. In the said case, company was proposed to be impleaded. Company is the juristic person and separate legal entity and directors are liable on behalf of the company, here, the partnership firm. Partnership firm is not a legal entity and each partner is liable to discharge the debt either collectively or individually. In this case, to discharge the statutory liability of payment of the Employees Provident Fund for number of workers, instead of giving a Demand Draft, the petitioner gave the cheque. As per Section 24 of the Partnership Act, the notice sent to the partners is deemed to be the service of notice to the partnership firm. Therefore, proper notice was sent within the time and also complaint was filed arraying the partners. By way of abundant caution now the partnership was proposed to be impleaded. The same was allowed in the interest of justice. Hence, the principle applicable to the company is not applicable to the partnership firm. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the revision.

5. This Court considered the rival submission of both the parties and the precedents relied upon by them and also perused the records.

6. The Employees Provident Fund organization (herein after called as EPF), initiated the proceedings against the petitioner and other partners of “Sweety garments” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the following allegation:

(i) Sweety Annal