TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sugla against the partnership firm namely M/S Shiva Steels and two of its partners namely Sujeet kumar Jaiswal (respondent herein) and Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal alleging dishonour of cheque being no. 334375 dated 23.12.2013 for Rs. 14,63,427/-, allegedly issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and/or liability of the partnership firm namely M/S Shiva Steels. During trial complainant examined one Amit Sugla as PW1 and proved the relevant documents to establish commission of offence, in terms of section 138 (b) of N.I. Act. Accused also adduced two witnesses in support of their defence and also exhibited documents on their side. 2. Learned Trial court came to a finding that accused no.1 i.e. the company namely M/S Shiva Steel and accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the said proceeding. 5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal order of accused no.2/partner/respondent herein, the complainant/appellant herein contended that though Appellate Court held that there are contradictions in the evidence of complainant witnesses but they are not material or important so as to stand in the way of rebuttal the issuance of cheque which has already been admitted by the defence witnesses in their evidence and further proof of issuance of cheque by the Respondent herein does not arise at all. He further contended that the rubber stamp appearing in the challan is the rubber stamp of the accused/company but they are now trying to avoid criminal liability, and the court below heavily relied upon such defence contention. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Respondent herein, who was convicted by the trial court at the end of trial. At the very outset it is to be noted that in the complaint at paragraph 3, it has been specifically stated that the accused persons in discharge of their existing liability, the accused no.2/present respondent issued a cheque on behalf of all the accused persons and in the evidence-inchief PW1 deposed that in discharge of their existing liabilities, the cheque was issued by the respondent herein on behalf of all the accused persons. 9. In such view of the mater it is complainant's specific case that the cheque was issued by accused no.2/respondent herein on behalf of the partnership firm which got dishonoured. According to the complaint case and complainants evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-(a)"company" means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b)"director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 11. In Aneeta Hada Vs. M/S Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 it has been clearly held that company / partnership firm is a juristic person but it has its own respecta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tic person namely the partnership firm is pre requisite to convict the partners referred under section 141 of the N.I. Act or to hold such partner guilty of the said offence. Section 141 makes it clear that a person referred to in section 141 of N.I. Act can be prosecuted and convicted only for an offence committed by another person i.e. the partnership firm. 13. In the present case complainant specifically averred in the complaint that the accused persons including the partnership firm in discharge of their legally enforceable debt had issued the cheque and nowhere in the complaint he has stated that accused no.2 issued the cheque in his personal capacity. If the substance of the complaint would have been that the accused no.2 issued the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any. Infact the liability of persons referred to section 141 of N.I. Act is co-extensive with that of the partnership firm and when in a proceeding under section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is found that the partnership firm has not committed the offence and it is acquitted and more so when it has reached its finality, the partners are not liable to be convicted for the offence for which the company has been acquitted. This is also because the vicarious liability of partners under section 141 of N.I. Act is contingent upon the partnership firm's conviction. If the firm is not found guilty, there is no principal offender for the partners to be vicariously liable for. If the company is acquitted, it means the court has determined that the company....