(1.) Whether a partner, who is not responsible for the day-to-day business of a partnership firm, can be prosecuted for the offences alleged to have been committed by the firm?
(2.) This is the main question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts that gave rise to this question are: The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Calendar Case No.138 of 1997 pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, and is facing trial along with another accused (Andhavarapu Bhaskara Rao-A.1) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 477-A IPC. Those proceedings were initiated at the instance of the 2nd respondent herein, who has filed a private complaint before the said Court stating that he (the complainant), the petitioner herein (A2) and A1 were partners of the partnership firm - Siri Marketings - which was constituted for carrying on the business in purchase and sales of lubricating oils, building materials etc. The said partnership firm commenced its business from 1-9-1994, As per the terms of the partnership deed each one of the partner had to invest Rs.94,000/- and each partner is entitled to 1/3rd of the profit and losses of the firm. The Bank Account of behalf of the firm had to be opened and operated jointly by the complainant and A1. A1 and the complainant are entitled to draw salary of Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month. It is further stated that the complainant (2nd respondent herein) wanted to retire from the firm and accordingly retired on 31-3-1995. Thereafter, on 1-4-1995 the remaining partners reconstituted the firm by inducting two more partners. But the complainant did not receive anything from the firm towards his share of profits, and the accounts of the firm were not settled inspite of his approaching the accused several times. Having waited for some reasonable time, the complainant contacted the petitioner herein (A2), her husband and father-in-law, many a time, personally and through elders, and requested settlement of accounts, but there was no response. Thus, both the accused colluded together and deceived the complainant with a dishonest intention of getting wrongful gain to them and loss to the complainant.