9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure to quash the proceedings, viz., E.O.C.C. No. 878 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras, against the petitioners. The first petitioner is the partnership firm, while petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners. The respondent has filed a complaint against these petitioners alleging commission of the offences under sections 120B, 34, 193, 196, 420 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst A. 1 and A. 2 but the same has to be quashed against the other petitioners for the reasons mentioned above. Learned counsel, Mr. K. Ramasamy, who is appearing for the respondent, refers to the partnership deed in which every partner has been given a specific responsibility in the administration of the firm and according to him from the responsibility allotted to each partner, it cannot be stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of the administration, it will not amount to overall charge of the firm and, therefore, the proceedings against petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 cannot be allowed to continue. In this case, not only for the mere reason that the partners are in charge of the conduct of the business of the first accused firm, but also for their participation in the commission of the offences, the complaint has been laun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces, sometimes may be evident from the conduct of the parties, which can be made clear only at the time of the trial. Apart from the fact that they are in charge of the conduct of the business, as it is alleged that they were also participants in the commission of the offence, I feel that the proceedings cannot be quashed, because the participation can be brought to light at the time of the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
