BEACON INDUSTRIES BANGALORE Vs. ANUPAM GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by M/s. Beacon Industries against the order dated 18-11-2001 passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore, in a private complaint under Section 200 of the cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) THE case of the revision petitioner is that the partnership firm, represented by its partner, filed a complaint against the respondent for bouncing of a cheque. After receipt of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, the Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the complaint by holding that there is a bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and that an unregistered firm cannot prosecute any person or a firm.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of both parties and perused the records. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that filing of a complaint by the partner of an unregistered firm is not a bar but it cannot file a civil suit. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint at the threshold by the Trial Court is totally illegal and incorrect. In this regard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a decision in Kerala Arecanut Stores v M/s. Ramkishore and Sons and another, wherein the Division Bench of that Court held that "the right of action available to an indorsee of a cheque who comes to hold the cheque in due course is based upon conferment on him by the statutory provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act the right to sue the maker of the cheque and also the indorser. The right sought to be enforced does not arise from a contract and therefore the Bar under section 69 (2) will not operate in such a case".