AVNASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Avnash Chander was filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the first information report in question, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda under sections 406 and 468, Indian Penal Code. The salient allegations made by Sukdev Singh informant are that he had Avnash Chander petitioner entered into partnership and a deed in that regard was executed by them. A vnash Chander used to deal with the accounts and maintain the account books. The cash was also kept by Avnash Chander. While acting as a partner Avnash Chander made fictitious entries in the Rokar Bahi and thereby embezzled Rs. 3,44,004/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on Velji Rachavji Patel. v. The State of Maharashtra1, laying down: In the case of a partnership, every partner has dominion over the partnership property by reason of the fact that he is a partner. This is a kind of dominion which every owner of property bas over his property. But it is not dominion of this kind which satisfies the requirements of section 405. The prosecution must further establish that dominion over the assets or a particular asset of the partnership was, by a special agreement between the parties, entrusted to the accused person. If in the absence of such a special agreement a partner received money belonging to the partnership be cannot be said to have received it in a fiduciary capacity or, in other words, cannot be held to have been entrusted with dominion over partnership property. In all fairness, learned counsel for the State contend that this case appears to be covered by this authority.

(3.) As regards the averment of the investigating officer in his reply to this petition that an offence under section 477-A. Indian Penal Code has been committed by the petitioner, his learned counsel sought support from C. V. Krishan v. Virji Kunverji and another2, expressing the view that having regard to the word Code, has been committed by the petitioner, expressing the view that having regard to the wordings of section 477-A, Indian Penal Code, a partner cannot be guilty of the offence under that section. Here also, learned counsel for the State had nothing to say to the contrary.