R BABU Vs. C SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come up with this appeal when his complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed. The only reason for the dismissal is that the cheque in question, Ext. P1, was issued in respect of an account maintained by Suresh Agencies by its proprietor and not by the respondent C. Suresh. Therefore, according to the Court below the appellant/complainant ought to have filed a complaint against the firm and its proprietor and not against its proprietor in his personal capacity.

(2.) PW 2 is the Bank Manager. He had deposed before the Court below that the account in question against which the cheque was drawn was maintained by M/s. Suresh Agencies of which C. Suresh was the proprietor. The accused did not have a case before the Court below that he was not the proprietor of the said firm. In terms of S.138 of the Act, when a cheque is bounced, the person who issued it becomes liable for prosecution for the offence under the said provision. In such circumstances whether the cheque is issued by a business firm or not, the person who had drawn the cheque is liable under S.138.

(3.) There was no liability on the part of the complaint/appellant to implead the business firm or its proprietor in that capacity. He could have very well launched a complaint against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity . as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity.