1993 (3) TMI 384 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revision petition against summoning order under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Liability of partners in a firm under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 regarding notice to partners.
4. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The High Court considered the maintainability of a revision petition against a summoning order under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the summoning order was interlocutory and hence not revisable, in line with the provisions of the Code.

Issue 2: The complaint alleged that the partners in a firm were involved in issuing a dishonored cheque, leading to proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court examined the roles of the partners in the firm, their responsibilities, and the issuance of cheques, ultimately upholding the summoning order against the partners.

Issue 3: The Court delved into the interpretation of Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, regarding notice to partners in a firm. It emphasized that notice to one partner acting on behalf of the firm constitutes notice to the entire firm, barring exceptions like fraud. The Court rejected the argument that lack of notice to individual partners could absolve them of liability.

Issue 4: The Court analyzed the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It discussed precedents where inherent powers were invoked to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. The Court cited cases to illustrate the circumstances under which inherent powers can be utilized, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the legal system.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the summoning order against the partners in the firm, rejecting the revision petition on grounds of maintainability and emphasizing the applicability of Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act to impute notice to partners. The Court highlighted the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482 and the necessity to prevent misuse of legal procedures for securing justice.