Section 138 cheque prosecution: partner can file for the firm, presumption of liability stands, and notice service was upheld.

In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, a partner may institute a complaint on behalf of the firm because a partner acts as an agent of the firm under partnership law, and neither firm non-registration nor absence of the other partner's prior consent invalidates the complaint. The Court also applied the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 and held that, on the record, the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability; the accused failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. Service of the demand notice was likewise accepted, as dispatch to the correct address attracted deemed service and supporting evidence showed delivery or sufficient service.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by a partner on behalf of a partnership firm was maintainable, including the objection based on non-registration and absence of consent of the other partner; (ii) whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and whether the statutory presumption stood rebutted; (iii) whether the demand notice was duly served so as to complete the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by a partner on behalf of a partnership firm was maintainable, including the objection based on non-registration and absence of consent of the other partner.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 recognises a partner as an agent of the firm for the purpose of its business, and on that footing a partner is competent to institute a complaint on behalf of the firm. The objection that the complaint was not maintainable because the firm was unregistered was not accepted, since the complaint was treated as a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and not as a civil action for enforcement of contractual rights. The absence of prior consent of the other partner was also held not to vitiate the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint by the partner on behalf of the firm was maintainable and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and whether the statutory presumption stood rebutted.

Analysis: The Court applied the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and noted that the accused may rebut it on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. On the materials on record, the complainant showed advance of substantial sums and part repayments by the respondent, while the respondent failed to adduce any probable defence or documentary basis to displace the presumption. The trial court's acquittal on the footing that liability was not proved was therefore found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The cheques were held to have been issued towards a legally enforceable liability and the presumption was not rebutted.

Issue (iii): whether the demand notice was duly served so as to complete the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The notice sent to the respondent's correct addresses attracted the statutory presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the evidentiary presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In one complaint, the postal endorsement and subsequent official communication established actual delivery; in the other, the circumstances were treated as sufficient for deemed service. The objection that non-receipt defeated the prosecution was rejected.

Conclusion: The demand notice was held to have been duly served.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, and the matters were sent back for consequential criminal action on the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a partner may institute the complaint on behalf of the firm, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability unless rebutted on preponderance of probabilities, and dispatch of notice to the correct address satisfies the statutory requirement of service by deemed service when supported by the surrounding evidence.

---