TARA CHAND Vs. DABKAULI TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision filed by Tara Chand, Sat Pal, and Amar Nath and has been directed against the orders dated 13-9-1997 and 18-9-1997 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamal, who summoned Tara Chand, Sat Pal and Amar Nath as accused and framed charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) It is admitted case of the parties that Shri Tara Chand acting as a partner of M/s. Bhagwati Rice Mill issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of M/s. Dabkauli Trading Company. The cheque bounced as a result of which a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 142 of the said Act against M/s. Bhagwati Rice Mill and its three partners namely Tara Chand, Sat Pal and Amar Nath. On the basis of that complaint the learned Magistrate vide order dated 13-9-1977 issued notices to all the partners asking them to appear and face the trial. Later on the charge was framed under Section 138 of the Act against all the partners. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision.

(3.) The submission which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the cheque was issued under the signatures of Tara Chand and in these circumstances the criminal liability, if any, could that be of Tara Chand and not that of Sat Pal and Amar Nath. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed reliance on Section 141 of the Act and submits that even Satpal and Amamath are liable being the partners of M/s Bhagwati Rice Mill and the revision on their part should be dismissed as they can take the plea before trial Court that they had no knowledge with regard to the transactions conducted by the firm and they were not responsible for the affairs of the partnership firm. In support of his contentions Shri Kaushal relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kahan Chand Gupta v. Raj Kumar, 1994 (1) RCR 336. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent because in the cited case it was the specific case of the complainant made in the complaint itself that the accused were responsible for the business of the firm. These foundations were laid down in order to make the accused liable. In the light of this premise the Hon'ble Lordship was pleased to make an observation that there cannot be any quashment of the complaint under Section 138 on the ground that particular persons were sleeping partners and were not incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. Here the facts are quite distinguishable. In para No.2 of the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act, the bare allegations levelled by the complainant are that respondents No.2. to 4 i.e. Tara Chand, Sat Pal and Amar Nath are the partners of M/s Bhagwati Rice Mill. It is further alleged by the complainant that accused Nos.2 to 4 had purchased paddy from the complainant and in that transaction accused No.2 (Tara Chand) issued a cheque dated 30-10-1995 drawn on State Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. There is not an iota of allegations that respondent Nos.3 and 4 namely Sat Pal and Amar Nath were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. In these circumstances the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts in hand.