SAI ACCUMULATOR INDUSTRIES SANGAMNER Vs. SETHI BROTHERS AURANGABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal against acquittal of Respondent original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" in brief).

(2.) Facts In Brief May Be Stated As Follows:

(3.) I Have Heard The Counsel For Both Sides. The dispute has narrowed down to the question as to what is the effect of the complainant not being a registered partnership firm at the relevant time when complaint was filed. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that PW1 Kacheshwar Chavan produced photo copy of partnership deed and power of attorney. The transaction was not in question and the sending of notice was not disputed although date when it was refused was in dispute. The accused has not denied that the cheques were bounced but she has raised dispute that the battery plates were defective and the cheques could not have been presented for clearance when dispute on that count had been raised. The learned counsel for Appellant relied on the case of Abdul Gafoor vs. Abdurahiman,2000 3 AllMR(JOURNAL) 17, and the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2002 CrLJ 3682 of Allahabad High Court. It is stated that in the case of Gurcharan Singh, the Allahabad High Court has relied on the Judgment in the case of BSI Ltd. and another vs. Gift Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2000 SCC(Cri) 538. The counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, while referring to Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 repelled the contention that suit for recovery of money would encompass prosecution proceedings also. Thus, it is argued that there was no bar to the filing of the complaint by unregistered partnership.