9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... murthy and they entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant and he paid a sum of ₹ 2,20,000/-. The transaction did not materialise and hence the first accused concern and its proprietor gave a cheque in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the cheque got dishonoured on 22.5.1997 with an endorsement Funds insufficient . At the request of second accused, the cheque was represented on 3.6.1997 and 14.6.1997 and on both the occasions, the cheque got dishonoured for the same reason and thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer's notice, dated 25.6.1997, to the accused and it was received by the accused. No payment had been made even thereafter. Hence the complaint is filed. 3. Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner, mainly relied on the decision of this Court in Sri Sivasakthi Industries, rep. by its proprietor, Raman v. Arikant Metal Corporation, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 347. In that case, the first accused was a concern represented by proprietor Raman and the second accused was Raman and they were proceeded against for an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Pratap Singh, J, held that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are one and the same person and, as such, the proceedings as against the first accused, namely, M/s. Sri Sivasakthi Industries, represented by its proprietor, Raman, are to be quashed and the complaint is maintainable as against the second accused. The facts of the above case and the present case are identical. 6. Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther held, that both proprietorship and proprietrix are one and the same and it can be put in the cause title of the complaint, while prosecuting the drawer either as proprietorship concern represented by proprietrix or the proprietrix, representing the proprietorship concern, as both the things convey the same meaning. Anyhow, this question does not arise in the facts of the present case. 6. In this case, accused No. 1 is the proprietary concern and accused No. 2 is the proprietor and both the accused are one and the same person. Accused No. 1 is not a legal entity or juridical person and the prosecution cannot be maintained against it. At the same time, the prosecution against accused No. 2 is maintainable and can be continued. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
