MUKESH AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under sections 482 and 483 Criminal Procedure Code seeking setting aside of order dated 9/8/1999 passed in Crl Revision No.41/98 by an Additional Sessions Judge, the facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner filed a complaint on 27/3/1997 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') against M/s. Vogue Apparels also impleading its partners M.P. Singh, Ms. Roop Kataria @ Sonia, Jaimal Singh and Amarpreet Singh as accused 2 to 5 alleging that pursuant to the order dated 16/10/1996, the petitioner supplied cloth worth Rs.4,68,389.00 on 19/10/1996 vide invoice No.206, Rs.2,29,252.00 on 19/10/1997 vide invoice No. 207, Rs.4,821.00 On 15/10/1996 vide invoice No.205 to accused persons. Amounts of Rs.625.00 and Rs.350.00 had been added in invoice Nos.206 and 207 towards cartage charges. It is further alleged that to liquidate the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 on account of the supplies made, accused No.2 on behalf of remaining accused issued cheque dated 28/12/1996 for Rs.2,50,000.00 drawn on Punjab National Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi to the petitioner. On receipt of memo dated 6/2/1997 regarding dishonour of said cheque second time, the petitioner got sent a legal notice dated 14/2/1997 to accused persons through registered AD covers as also under certificate of postings. However, despite service of notices the amount of cheque was not paid. Accused had thus committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. After recording pre-summoning evidence vide order dated 24/4/1998 the accused were summoned to face trial for the said offence. Feeling aggrieved, the accused No.3 / respondent No.2 herein filed aforesaid Crl. Revision No.41/98 which was allowed by the order dated 9/8/1999 setting aside the summoning order qua her.

(2.) Submission advanced by Sh.A.K. Singla for petitioner was that respondent No.2 was / is responsible for conduct of business carried in partnership in the name of M/s. Vogue Apparels alongwith other partners under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the plea taken by her, she being not vicariously liable for the criminal liability arising out of dishonour of said cheque could have been gone into only during trial. Reliance was placed on the decision in Orient Syntex Ltd. and others vs. Besant Capital Tech Limited, Akola, 2000(3) Crimes 450. Submission- is, however, without any merit. Section 141 of the Act which is material, runs as under:-

(3.) In the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, (1983) 1 SCC 1 which was quoted with approval in State of Haryana vs .Brij LaI Mittal and others, (1998) 5 SCC 343, it was held:-