Under S.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, all partners can be held liable for dishonoured cheques without individual notice if involved in management.

1. This petition is filed under S.482, CrPC to quash the proceedings in CC No. 220/95 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petition are briefly as follows:
The first respondent represented by the General Power of Attorney Holder, filed a complaint against the petitioners under S.138 and S.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that A1 is a partnership firm with its office at Vuyyuru, Krishna District. A2 is the Managing partner and A2 to A5 are the partners of the said firm. It is further stated that A2 to A5 as partners of the A1 firm, are incharge and responsible and playing active role in the management and in day to day conduct of business of A1 firm. It is further alleged that A1 borrowed Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 21,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- on 28-11-1988, 7-12-1989 and 28-9-1994 respectively and executed promissory notes promissing to pay interest at 30% per annum and issued cheque dt. 25-5-1992 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on Indian Bank, Vuyyuru and the same was presented for collection at Andhra Bank, Vijayawada but it was returned on 7-6-1995 due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant got issued notice to the accused No. 1 and the accused failed to pay the amount. It is further alleged that the offence was committed with the active connivance and negligence of all the accused and hence, they are liable for punishment.

3. Now the petitioners filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque was issued by A2 on behalf of A1 firm and the fifth petitioner is a woman and it is absurd to contend that she is also looking after the business of the firm and the partnership deed clearly shows that A2, the Managing partner, is looking after the affairs of the theatre and others are no way responsible for the management and the affairs of the firm and hence the complaint is not maintainable against A3 to A5.

5. But the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the other partners are also looking after the business of the first petitioner firm and it is specifically mentioned in para 5 of the complaint that the petitioners 3 to 5 are partners of the firm, incharge and responsible for conduct of the business and also playing active role in the management and affairs of A1 firm, therefore, in view of the said allegation it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable against them, in view of S.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

6. It is useful to extract S.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties and reads as follows:
"..........(1) If the person committing an offence under S.138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secreta