Partner liability in cheque dishonour cases depends on impleading the firm and specific averments of responsibility.

A complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable against a partner alone where the partnership firm, as the principal offender, is not arraigned as an accused. Vicarious liability of partners arises only if the foundational requirement of impleading the firm is satisfied, and bare references to the firm in the cheque or notice do not cure that defect. A later attempt to summon the firm and another partner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot remedy an abated complaint, especially where there are no specific averments that the proposed accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the firm's business.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable against an individual partner alone without impleading the partnership firm, and whether, after the death of the sole accused and abatement of the complaint, the firm and another partner could be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the absence of specific allegations of liability or day-to-day control.

Analysis: The cheques were issued in the name of the firm and the legal notice was addressed to the firm as well as the deceased partner, but the complaint was instituted only against the deceased partner. Liability of partners for acts of the firm could arise only when the firm itself was arraigned as an accused. In a prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the firm is the principal offender and vicarious liability of partners is attracted only when the foundational requirement of impleading the firm is satisfied. The complaint was therefore defective at inception. The later attempt to implead the firm and another partner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not cure that defect after the complaint had already abated. Further, there were no specific averments that the proposed accused was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, or that the cheques were issued by him or under his control.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the partner alone, and the application to summon the firm and the other partner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rightly rejected.

---