SIVASAKTHI INDUSTRIES Vs. ARIHANT METAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 4961 of 1990 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482, Cr1. P.C., praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.

(2.) The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner and Raman, arraying them as accused 1 and 2 for offence under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act The allegations in it are briefly as follows:

(3.) V. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that in the case of proprietarily firm, the firm has no separate legal entity apart from its proprietor, the firm name being another name of the proprietor and hence the prosecution against the petitioner is not sustainable. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that as per section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, both the firm as well as the individual can be proceeded with and hence the prosecution, as against both the accused can be sustained.