1999 (3) TMI 657 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
Prosecution sustainability under S. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, Competency of PW 1 to represent the Partnership Firm, Disputed cheque examination by an expert under S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Prosecution sustainability under S. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act:
The revision petitioner argued that the 1st respondent, an unregistered partnership firm, cannot sustain the prosecution under S. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The court rejected this contention, stating that non-registration's effect applies to civil cases, not criminal cases. Therefore, the prosecution was deemed sustainable under the Act.

Competency of PW 1 to represent the Partnership Firm:
The revision petitioner claimed that PW 1, who conducted the case on behalf of the Partnership Firm, was incompetent due to an altered Partnership Deed. However, the court held that under the Partnership Act, all partners are agents of the firm and competent to represent it. Thus, the contention regarding representation was deemed unsustainable.

Disputed cheque examination by an expert under S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The revision petitioner denied issuing the cheque and requested its examination by an expert, which the trial court did not allow. The appellate court upheld this decision, stating the accused should have filed a petition for examination. However, citing precedent, the revision petitioner's request was deemed valid without a formal petition. The court ruled that the trial court's failure to comply with S. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiated the judgment. Consequently, the lower court's decisions were set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh disposal, including the comparison of the disputed cheque by a handwriting expert as requested by the revision petitioner.