Proprietorship proof is essential in Section 138 complaints when the complainant claims to be the payee concern's sole proprietor.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be filed by the payee or holder in due course, and where the payee is a proprietary concern, the proprietor can sue in his own name only if the proprietary nexus is proved. A bare assertion in the complaint or affidavit is insufficient when that status is disputed; cogent documentary or other reliable material is required. Here, although the cheque and return memo stood in the name of the proprietary concern, no proof of proprietorship was produced and the complainant admitted in cross-examination that he had no such proof. The evidence was therefore insufficient to establish competency to maintain the complaint.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved that he was the sole proprietor of the payee concern and therefore competent to maintain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 is maintainable by the payee or the holder in due course, and where the payee is a proprietary concern, the proprietor may file the complaint in his own name if the proprietary connection is established. Mere assertion in the complaint or affidavit is not enough where that status is specifically disputed; cogent material is required to prove nexus with the concern. In the present case, the cheque and return memo were in the name of the proprietary concern, but the complainant produced no documentary proof of proprietorship and admitted in cross-examination that he had no proof of being the sole proprietor. The evidence was therefore insufficient to establish his status as payee or competent complainant.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove his connection with the proprietary concern and, consequently, the conviction under Section 138 could not be sustained.

---