Partnership authority and cheque presumption: authorised partner complaints and bare security-cheque claims may fail without cogent rebuttal.

A complaint by one partner of a registered partnership firm is maintainable where the other partner has authorised conduct of the business and prosecution of proceedings. In a cheque dishonour case, the complainant may establish a legally enforceable debt and lending capacity through licence, partnership deed, cash book, ledger and related records; a bank balance in one account does not by itself negate capacity to lend. The accused must rebut the statutory presumption with cogent evidence, and a bare claim that the cheque was only a security cheque or that an old printed year appears on the leaf is insufficient. The note states that the presumption remained unrebutted and the prosecution case was accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint filed by one partner of a registered partnership firm was maintainable in the absence of a separate letter of authority. (ii) Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the capacity to advance the loan. (iii) Whether the accused rebutted the presumption arising from the cheque by showing that it was a security cheque or an old cheque leaf not issued for the transaction in question.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint filed by one partner of a registered partnership firm was maintainable in the absence of a separate letter of authority.

Analysis: The business transaction arose in the course of the firm's affairs. Under the law of partnership, every partner may take part in the conduct of the business subject to contract between the partners, and an act done by one partner with the consent of the other partner is an act of the firm. The evidence showed that the other partner had authorised the complainant-partner to carry on the business and to prosecute the litigation.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the objection based on absence of a separate letter of authority was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the capacity to advance the loan.

Analysis: The complainant produced the money-lender licence, partnership deed, cash book, loan ledger and related account records. These materials supported the lending transaction and the outstanding liability shown against the accused. The bank balance reflected in one account did not disprove the firm's ability to lend, particularly when the evidence showed other transactions and no proof was led to show that the said account was the only source of funds.

Conclusion: The complainant proved the loan liability and capacity to lend, and the finding against the existence of debt was unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the accused rebutted the presumption arising from the cheque by showing that it was a security cheque or an old cheque leaf not issued for the transaction in question.

Analysis: The accused relied on the printed year on the cheque leaf and on certain passbook entries, but there was no independent material showing that the cheque had been issued only as security or that the printed proforma year disproved the written date. The statutory presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The defence failed to rebut the presumption under the negotiable instruments law, and the cheque was treated as issued towards the discharge of liability.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was found guilty of the cheque dishonour offence, and the complainant succeeded in establishing the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, a partnership firm may act through an authorised partner, and the statutory presumption of liability stands unless the accused rebuts it with cogent evidence; a bare claim that the cheque was a security cheque or that the cheque leaf bore an old printed year is insufficient.

---