IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, November 23, 2011 Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 4705 of 2009 Between: N. Gururaja Rao ..Petitioner and A. Janardhana Reddy and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 4705 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard the petitioner’s counsel, Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy; Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The point that is raised in this petition is whether there are grounds to quash a criminal case i.e. C.C.No. 303 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool(trial Court), so far as this petitioner is concerned, who is A-4 therein on the ground that no allegations are made for continuing the prosecution against him for the oﬀence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. In the complaint, no doubt, four accused are shown. The ﬁrst accused is the ﬁrm – Sree Saraswathi Chemicals and A-2, A-3 and A-4 are stated to be its partners. In the complaint nothing is mentioned as to who among the partners signed the cheques in question. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the court that the second and third accused – P.L.K. Prasad and G. Kiran Kumar respectively signed the cheques. It therefore follows that so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned, it can be said that the complaint is well founded, though truthfulness of the allegations made against them has to be decided by the trial court. 4. So far as this petitioner i.e., A-4 is concerned, Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy says that there is nothing in the complaint to show how this petitioner, though a partner, has been in charge of the business of the ﬁrm in order to make him also vicariously liable for the oﬀence in question. It may be noted that S.141 (1) of the Act, which deals with the oﬀences by the companies, which include a ﬁrm, reads “if the person committing an oﬀence under section 138 is a company i.e., ﬁrm, every person who, at the time the oﬀence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company i.e., ﬁrm for the conduct of the business of the company i.e., ﬁrm, shall be deemed to be guilty of the oﬀence.” It may be noted that in the complaint, even the language of S.141 of the Act is not reproduced in order to show the liability of this petitioner. 5. In similar circumstances Supreme Court in Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat [1] has laid down that in such a situation the prosecution cannot be maintained against a partner whose role is not shown in the aﬀairs of the ﬁrm. Accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances it follows that the criminal case in question cannot be allowed to be continued against this petitioner. 6. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 303 of 2008 in the trial Court, in so far as they relate to the present petitioner (A- 4) are hereby quashed. 7. It is however made clear that the trial court shall always have the power to proceed against the present petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or any other provisions of law, if that is warranted. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. November 23, 2011. *BVS [1] 2004 (7) SCC 15 (SC)