Non-registration of partnership firm does not bar Section 138 prosecution; denial of handwriting expert examination can vitiate trial.

Non-registration of a partnership firm did not bar a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the Section 69(2) Partnership Act bar applies to enforcement of civil rights, not criminal complaints, and partners were competent to represent the firm and give evidence on its behalf. Separately, where the accused disputed the cheque and sought handwriting expert examination, the trial court was required to consider that request under Section 243 CrPC; failure to permit expert comparison caused prejudice and vitiated the trial. The matter was remitted for fresh disposal after allowing expert examination and further evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred because the complainant was an unregistered partnership firm. (ii) Whether the trial was vitiated for failure to send the disputed cheque for examination by a handwriting expert under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred because the complainant was an unregistered partnership firm.

Analysis: The bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 applies to enforcement of civil rights and does not extend to criminal prosecution. The objection based on non-registration of the firm therefore did not affect the maintainability of the complaint. The further objection that the partner examined as witness was incompetent to represent the firm was rejected because partners are competent to represent the firm and to give evidence on its behalf.

Conclusion: The objection to the prosecution on the ground of non-registration of the partnership firm was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial was vitiated for failure to send the disputed cheque for examination by a handwriting expert under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The accused had disputed the cheque and stated that it should be sent for expert examination. Such a request was sufficient to attract the protection of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial court ought to have considered the request and permitted comparison of the disputed cheque by a handwriting expert. The failure to do so caused prejudice and vitiated the judgment.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not stand and the matter required fresh disposal after allowing expert examination and further evidence.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the courts below were set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh decision after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence, including expert comparison of the cheque.

Ratio Decidendi: A disputed cheque should be considered for handwriting-expert examination when the accused requests such comparison in defence, and denial of that opportunity can vitiate the trial for non-compliance with the procedural safeguard governing defence evidence.

---