1995 (11) TMI 481 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of three criminal revisions together.
2. Complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Quashing of complaints by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Interpretation of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Validity of notice served on the respondents.
6. Liability of partners in a firm under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the disposal of three criminal revisions together as they share common questions. The complaints were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by different petitioners against the respondents for dishonoring multiple cheques issued to discharge debts.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge quashed the complaints based on a previous court decision, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clarified that post-dated cheques are deemed to be drawn on the date mentioned, affecting the validity of the quashing decision.

3. The interpretation of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discussed, where it was argued that multiple cheques issued in the same transaction do not necessitate separate complaints for each dishonored cheque, especially when they are part of a single debt repayment.

4. The validity of the notice served on the respondents was challenged, contending that it was issued to the firm and not individually to each partner. However, compliance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was confirmed as the notice to the firm, represented by any partner, was deemed sufficient.

5. The liability of partners in a firm under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was analyzed. It was established that partners can be held responsible for the firm's conduct if they were in charge of and responsible for the business at the time of the offense. Lack of specific allegations against certain partners led to the dismissal of the complaints against them.

6. Ultimately, the revision petitions against certain partners failed due to insufficient allegations, while the complaint against the main respondent was allowed to proceed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate based on his direct involvement in issuing the dishonored cheques.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the court's decision and reasoning.