Section 138 prosecution by an unregistered firm upheld; power of attorney evidence and admitted liability sustained the conviction.

An unregistered partnership firm could maintain a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, because the bar in Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act was held inapplicable. The power of attorney holder's evidence was accepted, as the proof affidavit contained the necessary averments of personal knowledge. Since the accused did not dispute the liability, cheque signature, or existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the cheque was dishonoured for stop payment with no compliance with statutory notice, the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable, including the maintainability of the complaint by an unregistered partnership firm and the competency of the power of attorney holder's evidence.

Analysis: The complaint by an unregistered partnership firm was held maintainable, as the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 was found inapplicable to a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The proof affidavit of the power of attorney holder contained the necessary averments regarding personal knowledge, and the requirement for his testimony was treated as satisfied. The accused did not dispute the acknowledgment of liability, the cheque signature, or the existence of the legally enforceable debt. The cheque was dishonoured for stop payment, and the statutory notice was not complied with.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were held sustainable and were not interfered with.

---