Back
2003 Supreme(All) 596
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.N.SINHA
Anil Kumar Singh
Versus
Kanak Prabha Dutta
Criminal Revn. 658 of 2001
Decided On : 25 March 2003
Criminal Revn. 658 Of 2001
GOPAL S.CHATURVEDI, I.K.Chaturvedi, Ram Milan Dwivedi, Ramesh Singh,
Partners continue to be liable for acts of the firm until public notice of dissolution is given, as per S. 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Headnote:
N.I. Act - Partnership - Ss. 138/141 - S. 32, 43, 45, 63, 72 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Fact of the Case:
The complainants filed cases under Ss. 138/141 of the N.I. Act against the partners of a firm for dishonor of cheques. The revisionist, a partner, claimed to have ceased partnership before the cheque issuance. The lower court discharged the revisionist, but the revisional court set aside the order and ordered to proceed with the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist did not cease to be a partner of the firm and was liable for the dishonored cheques. It also held that proceeding with the case as a warrant trial was not illegal.
Issues: Partnership cessation, liability for dishonored cheques, trial procedure
Ratio Decidendi: The revisionist did not cease to be a partner of the firm as per the Indian Partnership Act, and the case could proceed as a warrant trial under S. 259 of the Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Nos. 658 and 659 2001 were dismissed.
( 2 ) THE brief facts relating to Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2001 are that Smt. Kanak Prabha Dutta opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint under Ss. 138/141 of the N. I. Act Police Station George Town, Allahabad, on the ground that the revisionist-Anil Kumar Singh and opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 were the partners of the firm opposite party No. 2, Sri P. N. Singh opposite party No. 3 took Rs. 1,00000. 00 (one lac) from Kanak Prabha Dutta with a promise to return the same on 30-6-1997. On the said date cheque number 097603 was issued by opposite party No. 3, which was presented to the Bank on the same day but the Bank informed on 3-7-1997 that it cannot be paid on account of shortage of money in the said account. The opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kanak Prabha issued a notice which was served on opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 on 16-6-1997 and demanded Rs. 1,00000. 00 (one lac) which was not paid hence the complaint was filed.
( 3 ) THE facts of Criminal Revision No. 659 of 2001, are almost the similar except that Smt. Sonali Dutta opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint on the same facts that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 borrowed Rupees 1,00000/- (one lac) from her and promised to pay on 30-6-1997. On 30-6-1997 the opposite party No. 3 Paras Nath Singh issued Cheque No. 097604 as partner of the firm opposite party No. 2 which was presented to the Bank but the same was returned on account of shortage of money hence a notice was sent which was received to revisionist and opposite parties 2 to 6 on 16-7-1997 whereby the complainant opposite party No. 1 demanded Rs. 1,00000. 00 (one lac) and the same being not paid, the complaint was filed.
( 4 ) IN both the complaints an order dated 3-12-1997 was passed against which a revision was filed in this Court, this Court ordered that the Magistrate shall pass the order after hearing the parties. Consequently, the Magistrate passed the order on 18-8-1999 discharging the revisionist-Anil Kumar Singh but further ordered that the complaint against the remaining accused shall proceed as it is. Smt. Sonali Dutta filed Revision No. 1217 of 1999 against the discharge of accused-revisionist-Anil Kumar Singh and the remaining accused-Vikas Singh and others filed Revision No. 1414 of 1999 against the order of the Magistrate. Similarly, in the complaint of Smt. Kanak Prabha Dutta Revision No. 1218 of 1999 was filed against discharge of accused-revisionist-Anil Kumar Singh and Vikas Singh and other accused (opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 of the present revision) filed Revision No. 1413 of 1999 against the order of the Magistrate. In all the cases the (sic) revisional Court dismissed Revision No. 1413 of 1999 and partly allowed Revision No. 1218 of 1999 setting aside the order of the Magistrate discharging revisionist-Anil Kumar Singh and ordered to proceed with the case from the stage of 244, Cr. P. C. In the case of Sonali Dutta similar orders were passed by the revisional Court dismissing the Revision No. 1414 of 1999 and partly allowing Revision No. 1217 of 1999 filed by Smt. Sonali Dutta.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court the present revisions have been filed.
( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 6.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has raised the first point that Anil Kumar Singh has ceased to be the partner of the firm before the issue of the cheque and he has nothing to do with the said transaction. Therefore, the order of lower revisional Court setting aside the order of the Magistrate is against law. The next point was raised that the case being a summon trial should not proceed as a warrant trial and there is no occasion for coming to the stage of 244, Cr. P. C.
( 8 )
