S K REAL ESTATES Vs. S AHMED MEERAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C. C. No.5890 of 1997 on the file of V-Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and they pray for quashing the proceedings in the case.

(2.) The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners arraying them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent/complainant, the first accused is a concern, represented by its proprietor S. K. Krishnamurthy and the second accused is S. K. Krishnamurthy and they entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant and he paid a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The transaction did not materialise and hence the first accused concerned and its proprietor gave a cheque in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the cheque got dishonoured on 22-5-1997 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". At the request of second accused, the cheque was represented on 3-6-1997 and 14-6-1997 and on both the occasions, the cheque got dishonoured for the same reason and thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer's notice, dated 25-6-1997, to the accused and it was received by the accused. No payment had been made even thereafter. Hence the complaint is filed.

(3.) Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, made an endorsement that he is withdrawing the petition as against the second petitioner and confining his argument in respect of first petitioner alone. He contended that the proprietary concern is not a legal entity apart from its proprietor, the concern name being the name of the proprietor himself and hence the prosecution against the first petitioner is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the proprietary concern and the proprietor can be proceeded against and the prosecution against both can be sustained.