IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque--Complaint by partnership firm--Who can file--In partnership firm each partner’s act on behalf of firm is valid--No specific authorisation is required for partner to file a complaint.
Dishonour of cheque--Service of Notice--Presumption--Once notice has been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due in a correct address, it must be presumed that the service has been made effective.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral).:- M/s Verdhman India Products has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 01.09.2005 rendered by Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jalandhar, whereby respondent Sulakhshan Luthra, Prop./Partner M/s Shiva Enterprises, Gurudwara Complex, Shiv Nagar, Jalandhar was acquitted.

2. Briefly stated, a complaint was filed by M/s Verdhman India Products through its partner Sandeep Jain. It was stated therein that the accused respondent had issued a cheque No.764034 dated 23rd October, 1998 worth Rs.40,000/- drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Jalandhar in discharge of its liability. The cheque was presented to the Bank and the same was returned with remarks ‘funds insufficient’ on 26th March, 1999. The cheque was received back by the complainant on 27th March, 1999. The cheque was again presented to the bank on 16th April, 1999 but it was again dishonoured and returned by the Bank with the remarks ‘exceeds arrangements’. The Bank’s endorsement was received by the complainant on 17th April, 1999. On 23rd April, 1999, the complainant issued a notice through his Counsel under registered A.D.-cum-UPC cover and made a demand that the amount of cheque, i.e. Rs.40,000/- be paid within 15 days of the receipt of that legal notice. The registered notice was received back as unserved and it is stated that the UPC was delivered to the accused at the given address. The complainant appeared in the Court as PW-1. He stated that he was a partner of M/s Verdhman India Products. After the accused was summoned, the complainant stepped again into the witness box as CW-2 and reiterated that he was one of the partners of the said firm and was well aware of the facts of the case. The complainant was subjected to cross examination. In cross examination, the complainant stated as under:

“I have explained to my counsel that I am the partner of complainant firm. I cannot say if my counsel has mentioned this fact in the complaint. I have not attached any partnership deed with this case. I have not brought the partnership deed, even today in the Court.”

3. This cross examination, concluded on 8th December, 2004. On 22nd March, 2005, statement of the complainant Sandeep Jain, partner of the appellant firm, was recorded. The same reads as under:

“Stated that I hereby tender partnership deed Ex.P9 and close my evidence.”

4. The trial Court, after examining the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and examination of defence evidence, acquitted the accused respondent, primarily on two grounds. Firstly, no evidence was brought on the record to prove that the partnership firm was in existence and was a registered one and that the complainant was its partner. Secondly, the trial Court has held that the noticed sent under Registered A.D. cover having been received back unserved, bearing endorsement of the postal authorities to the effect that despite Postman having repeatedly gone, the addressee was not found, has not been proved that the address on the registered cover was correct and that the accused has evaded service. Therefore, there was no service effected upon the accused.

5. Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate appearing for the appellant, has drawn my attention to Ex.P9, which is a certified copy of the partnership deed. A perusal of the same reveals that there were four partners and Sandeep Jain complainant was partner No.2.

6. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the accused respondent, has argued that when the complainant was being cross examined, at that time, the partnership deed was not available, therefore, no opportunity was available with the accused to assail the authenticity of the same by putting the relevant questions to the witness. Furthermore, it is stated that after the prosecution evidence was concluded, then partnership deed was tendered as Ex.P9. Mr.Sharma has further stated that the mode and proof of the document cannot be dispensed with, therefore, the complainant ha