ANR. Vs. M/S. Singaravel Yarn Traders  INSC 1122 (28 May 2009)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2004 VENKATESHWARAN & ANR.
present appeal is against the order passed by the High Court refusing to
entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the proceedings of
complaint filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petition was filed on the ground that
the appellants were not the partners and had nothing to do with the
aforementioned firm which was accused No.1 in the complaint. The learned Judge
has observed that it was not possible at this stage to ascertain as to whether
the concerned appellants were the partners of the partnership firm and whether
there was any partnership firm in existence. When we see the complaint filed in
trial Court, it is very clearly stated as under:
"6. The second
accused is guilty, as drawer of the cheque on behalf of Accused No.1, as its
Managing Partner. The Accused Nos. 3 and 4 being partners of the Accused No.1,
were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of
Accused No.1, and shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence."
question as to whether the present appellants, who were accused No.3 and 4, were
the partners of the firm and were responsible for conduct of business is the
disputed question of fact which could not have been gone into under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The High Court was absolutely right in not entertaining that question.
It would be during the trial for the accused persons to urge that they were not
in any way concerned with the said partnership firm. In our opinion, the High
Court was absolutely right in dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
( V.S. SIRPURKAR )
Pages: 1 2 3