9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess P.W.1 and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.13, it is seen that private complainant has successfully demonstrated regarding the business transaction between the parties and revision petitioner has liability of ₹ 4,60,388/- which has been admitted under Ex.P.3. Since the said document remained unchanged and the cheque in issue was also representing legally enforceable debt and the cheque was dishonored with an endorsement “stop Payment” and even after statutory notice demanding the payment, he has not paid the amount and hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts bellow cannot be interfered with as they does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Criminal Revision Case is dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment also amount to insufficient funds and also attract the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrumental Act and also held that despite several opportunity was given to the accused, he has not chosen for further cross examination and hence, closed the evidence of the private complainant and after questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., laid the conviction and the same has been confirmed on appeal. 5 . Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that the private complainant is an unregistered partnership firm and hence, for want of mandatory sanction under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, they cannot maintain the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, the private complaint has been lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the contention of P.W.1. 10. The question of maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by unregistered partnership firm is no longer res-integra, in view of the decision reported in 2012 (3) MWN (Cr.) (DCC) 49 (Mad.) [Karthick Co., Vs. Vadivel Sizing Weaving Mills Private Ltd.,], wherein, it is held as follows:- Complaint filed by unregistered Partnership Firm Held, maintainable Bar under Section 69(2) of Partnership Act not applicable. 11. On perusal of the proof affidavit filed by P.W.1, this Court is satisfied that there are necessary averments in the affidavit with regard to the knowledge of the Power of Attorney Holder representing the respondent/private complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
