1999 (3) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....II, Kozhikode. The accused is the revision petitioner. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent. The allegation was that for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- due from the revision petitioner to the 1st respondent, he issued a cheque dated 5.6.91 to the 1st respondent When the cheque was presented ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent, complainant This revision is preferred against the judgment in the appeal. 3. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent being an unregistered partnership firm, the above prosecution is not sustainable under S. 69(2) of the Indian partnership Act The effect of non-registration of the Partnership Firm under S. 69 of the partnership Act is applicable only ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partners are agents of the Partnership Firm and therefore, every partner is competent to represent the firm and to give evidence on behalf of the Firm. Hence this contention of the revision petitioner is also not sustainable. 6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that no amount is due from him to the 1st respondent and that he has not issued Ext. P1 cheque in favour of the 1st re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the circumstances under which he was given a signed blank cheque leaf to the 1st respondent. The lower appellate court is not at all justified in negativing the contention of the revision petitioner in this regard. It is not necessary for the accused to file a petition before the Court for sending disputed cheque for comparison by an expert It is sufficient if he stated when he is examined under....