Cheque dishonour complaints by unregistered firms remain maintainable, and missing proof of authority can be cured on appeal.

Additional evidence in the form of a partnership deed may be admitted in appeal under Section 391 CrPC where it is needed to properly decide proof of partnership and authorisation in a cheque dishonour case, and the defect is treated as curable. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains maintainable even where the firm is unregistered, because Section 69 of the Partnership Act bars contractual enforcement by civil proceedings but does not extend to criminal prosecution under the special statute. The complaint was restored for fresh trial after permitting proof of partnership and authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence in the form of the partnership deed could be permitted to be placed on record in appeal to prove partnership and authorisation. (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable at the instance of an unregistered partnership firm.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence in the form of the partnership deed could be permitted to be placed on record in appeal to prove partnership and authorisation.

Analysis: Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the appellate court to take further evidence where it is necessary for a proper decision of the appeal. The defect relating to proof of authority to represent a firm in a cheque dishonour complaint is curable, and a complainant cannot be denied an opportunity to establish such authority merely because it was not satisfactorily proved at the trial stage. The decision proceeded on the principle that procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights where the controversy can be resolved by allowing proper proof.

Conclusion: The application to place the partnership deed on record was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable at the instance of an unregistered partnership firm.

Analysis: Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 bars suits and other proceedings enforcing contractual rights by an unregistered firm, but proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are criminal in nature and are not mere recovery proceedings. The dishonour of a cheque gives rise to criminal liability under the special statute, and the statutory requirement of a legally enforceable debt does not mean that a complainant must be able to enforce the debt only through a civil suit. The view that non-registration of the firm disables prosecution was rejected, and the contrary line of authority was preferred.

Conclusion: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable even if the partnership firm is unregistered.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal could not be sustained; the complaint was restored to be tried afresh after permitting proof of partnership and authorisation.

Ratio Decidendi: Curable defects in proof of authority in a cheque dishonour complaint may be rectified by permitting additional evidence, and the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not extend to criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---