BORA TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. CHAMPALAL B OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) HEARD. The respondent no.1 in each petition has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioners. Petitioner nos.1 to 6 are accused nos.1 to 6 respectively in each of the complaints. According to the respondent/complainant, accused no.1 is partnership firm and accused nos.2 to 6 were partners of the firm. Complainant had on request of the accused persons deposited certain amounts with the accused nos.1 firm. The accused no.2 Manoj M. Bora had issued cheques for repayment of the said amounts on 12.4.2002, in each case. Though cheques were signed by the accused no.2 alone, all the accused nos.2 to 6 used to run business of the partnership firm. They were responsible for the conduct of the business and, therefore, each of them was responsible for the payment of the amount. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. In spite of notices issued, repayment was not made by the accused, therefore, complaints were filed.

(3.) FROM the complaint, it appears that the accused persons had approached the complainant through his brother with a request to him to deposit amounts with the firm of the accused and accordingly, the complainant deposited different amounts with the firm. The complaint does not specifically state as to where the amount was actually deposited by him. Presuming that the amount was deposited by the complainant with the accused no.1 firm at Pune, still J.M.F.C., Karjat has jurisdiction in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran V. Balan and Another (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510. In K. Bhaskaran, Supreme Court held that following acts are components of the offence under Section 138: