R. Rajagopal Vs. S.S. Venkat
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 170-172 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3142-3144/1999)
Petitioner: R. Rajagopal
Respondent: S.S. Venkat
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 170-172 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3142-3144/1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138- Complaint against partner only – Complaint quashed as company (the firm) not made an accused. Held that in view of Anil Handa’s case (JT 1999 (9) SC 223) stand of High Court not sustainable. Appeal allowed.(Paras 2, 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Anil Handa v. India Acrylic Limited (JT 1999 (9) SC 223)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The only ground on which the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been quashed by the High court is that the Company (the partnership firm in this case) on whose behalf the cheque was issued was not made an accused in the com-plaint. Respondent who is the partner has been made an accused.
3. The aforesaid stand of the High Court cannot now be sustained in view of the pronouncement of law on the subject in Anil Handa v. India Acrylic Limited (JT 1999 (9) SC 223 = (2000) 1 SCC 1).
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent then submitted that there are other contentions which Respondent has to raise as against the prosecution. We are not disposed to deal with all those con-tentions, for, it is open to the Respondent to raise such conten-tions in the trial court.
5. In the result we set aside the impugned judgment and direct the trial court to proceed with the trial.
6. The appeals are disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. The only ground on which the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been quashed by the High court is that the Company (the partnership firm in this case) on whose behalf the cheque was issued was not made an accused in the com-plaint. Respondent who is the partner has been made an accused.
3. The aforesaid stand of the High Court cannot now be sustained in view of the pronouncement of law on the subject in Anil Handa v. India Acrylic Limited (JT 1999 (9) SC 223 = (2000) 1 SCC 1).
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent then submitted that there are other contentions which Respondent has to raise as against the prosecution. We are not disposed to deal with all those con-tentions, for, it is open to the Respondent to raise such conten-tions in the trial court.
5. In the result we set aside the impugned judgment and direct the trial court to proceed with the trial.
6. The appeals are disposed of.
