A S MANICKKAM Vs. RAPUSHPAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are partners of a firm called "Karthikai Agencies". THE appellants herein filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the respondents and another person by name Chandrasekaran alleging that the first accused named in the complaint, against whom the case is split up and pending as separate cases, issued cheques and that those cheques which are the subject matter of all these appeals were dishonoured by the bank and that the cheques were returned stating "refer to drawer" and after issuing statutory notices, the complaint is filed. As the first accused named in the complaint namely, Chandrasekaran absconded, the trial court proceeded with the complaint as against the present respondents. Before the trial court two witnesses were examined including the complainant.

(2.) THE trial court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the complainant is entitled to file a complaint as a manager of the complainant's company. THE contention raised by the accused that the cheques were obtained from Chandrasekaran under coercion was negatived by the trial court. It was urged before the trial court that the complaint without impleading the company is not maintainable against the respondents who are partners of the firm. THE trial court accepted the above contention of the respondents and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the complainant has filed these appeals.

(3.) THE wording and language employed in section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act are similar to section 141 of the Act. THE facts of the above case will clearly show that a complaint was filed against the managing director and production manager of the company. THE accused moved the High Court under sections 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings on the ground that they could not in law be prosecuted unless the company itself was prosecuted. THE High Court over-ruled the above contention and dismissed the petition. Relying upon an earlier decision reported in State of Madras v. C. V. Parekh, the apex court has given the ruling which is quoted above. It has been held by the apex court thus (page 1825 of AIR 1984 SC) :