Criminal Misc. No. M-25678 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25678 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.8.2011. Manish Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of (i) complaint titled Ashok Kumar vs. M/s Vishwa Nath Industries & others (Annexure P-1); (ii) order dated November 4th, 2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana whereby petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act; (iii) order dated May 27th, 2005 dismissing the application of the accused under Section 245 of the Code for discharging the accused (Annexure P-3) and; (iv) order dated February 17th, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby revision filed by the petitioner against order (Annexure P-3) was dismissed. 2. The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused is that the petitioner merely issued the cheque in the capacity of an authorized signatory of the partnership firm M/s Kamal Iron and Steel Industries. He was not in charge of the affairs of the firm. Hence, he is not liable at all. 3. Indisputably, the accused was a partner in the aforesaid firm. As regards the extension and restriction of partner's implied authority, reference may profitably be made to Section 20 of the Partnership Act, 1932. It reads as under:- “20. Extension and restriction of partner's Criminal Misc. No. M-25678 of 2009 2 implied authority.---The partners in a firm may, by contract between the partners, extend or restrict the implied authority or any partner. Notwithstanding any such restriction, any act done by a partner on behalf of the firm which falls within his implied authority binds the firm, unless the person with whom he is dealing knows of the restriction or does not know or believe that partner to be a partner.” 4. Section 20 of the Act makes the things clear. The partners of a partnership firm are at liberty to extend or restrict the implied authority of a partner. The non-obstante clause appended to the section envisages that an act which falls in the implied authority of a firm binds the firm if a third person who is dealing with the partnership firm is not made aware of the restriction imposed. Once an act is done which falls in the implied authority of a partner, the firm cannot evade its liability and every partner of the firm is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. 5. Now in the case in hand, whether the complainant was aware of the restriction on the implied authority of the petitioner or not can be decided after the evidence. It is a question of fact which requires to be proved by adducing evidence. 6. So far as correctness of orders (Annexure P-3 and P-4) is concerned, the same are perfectly justified inasmuch the provisions of Section 245 of the Code has no application in the present case as it is a summons case. 7. Thus, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 26.8.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE