Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be filed by the payee through a power agent. (ii) Whether partners of a firm could be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 without impleading the firm as an accused.
Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be filed by the payee through a power agent.
Analysis: The Court accepted the position already taken in earlier matters that a payee represented by a power agent is competent to institute a complaint under Section 138. The objection that the complaint was not maintainable for want of direct filing by the payee was therefore not available.
Conclusion: The first objection was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether partners of a firm could be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 without impleading the firm as an accused.
Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that where the statutory language fastening criminal liability is similar, partners can be proceeded against even if the firm is not arrayed as an accused. Applying that reasoning to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court held that the absence of the firm as a party did not defeat the prosecution of the partners.
Conclusion: The second objection was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The quash petition was liable to fail, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be instituted through a power agent, and partners may be prosecuted for the offence even if the firm is not impleaded as an accused where the governing statutory scheme permits such liability.