In this criminal appeal against acquittal on a cheque bounce complaint, the High Court of Madras examined the trial court's reasoning on partnership status and proof of underlying transaction. Finding no error in the acquittal, the higher court dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2007 stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2007
EEM PEE TEX,
Partnership Firm
Rep. By its Managing Partner
G.N.Maheswaran
No.23 Pughazhum Perumalpuram II Street Corner,
Gunarananthapuram,
Tirupur-641 602. ...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.Dilip Garments (A-1),
(Partnership Firm),
Rep. By M.Balasubramaniam,
Partner,
51-A Gandhi Road,
Anupparapalayam Post,
Tirupur.
2.M.Balasubramaniam (A-5),
Partner,
Dilip Garments ...Respondents/Accused
Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 378 r/w 382 of
Cr.P.C against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Tirupur in C.C.No.703 of 2004 on 26.03.2007.
For Appellant : Mr.G.M.Ramasubramaniam for M/s.Ram and Ram
This appeal arises against the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur in C.C.No.703 of 2004 on 26.03.2007.
that first respondent firm had purchased yarn on credit to the tune of Rs.3,79,500/- from them and issued two cheques (i) cheque dated 23.03.2004 in a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- and (ii) cheque dated 14.05.2004 in a sum of Rs.1,58,800/- to them towards repayment of borrowing, which upon presentation was returned unpaid for the reason 'insufficient funds'. Appellant/complainant following the procedure envisaged u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred a complaint. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.703 of 2004 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur.
(i)It was the case of accused 2, 3 and 4 that they are not partners of the first accused company. A perusal of Ex.D3, Bank Account Opening Form of first accused dated 23.11.2001, informed the names of fifth accused and one Gandhimathi as its partner. When DW5 was cross-examined on behalf of second accused, he admitted that A2 left the company on 22.05.1996 itself. Ex.D5, Deed of Withdrawal, informed that A3 and A4 had left the company in 1992 itself. Their names were also not found in Ex.D3, Bank Account Opening Form. So also in Ex.D1, Form 'A' – Registration Certificate. All these documents suggested that accused 2, 3 and 4 were not partners of first accused company in the year 2004 and the complainant has also not filed any document to prove that accused 2, 3 and 4 were partners of first accused company.
transaction has not been mentioned. When the very transaction itself was denied by A1, complainant has not taken any steps to disprove such contention.
(iii)After much delay, complainant has marked Exs.P19 to P28. It was the contention of accused that they have paid the amount mentioned in Exs.P19 to P22 and P24, invoices and Ex.P4, Account Statement, also admits such position. It was not denied by complainant. It was the contention of accused that the Memo Pads in Exs.P23, P25 to P28 were written by A5 and the contents thereof were not written by him. While it was the case of complainant that Exs. P25 to P28 were issued by employees of A1, he has neither mentioned their names nor examined them.”
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused in a cheque bouncing case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Whether the accused were validly partners of the firm at the relevant time regarding liability.
Whether the complainant had discharged the burden of proof regarding the nature of the transaction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
EEM PEE TEX, Rep. By G.N.Maheswaran
Dilip Garments (A-1), Rep. By M.Balasubramaniam
M.Balasubramaniam (A-5)
C.T.Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
