IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7777 of 2007 and 7780 of 2007 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7777 of 2007: Between: Talasu Venkataramana ... PETITIONER/A-3 a n d M/s.Dhanuka Pesticides Limited, rep. by its G.P.A. & Authorized signatory Sri K. Markandeyulu and others … RESPONDENTS a n d CRIMINAL PETITION No.7780 of 2007: Between: Talasu Venkataramana ... PETITIONER a n d M/s.Northern Minerals Limited, rep. by its G.P.A. & Authorized Signatory Sri K. Markandeyulu and others … RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: Common questions of law arise for consideration in these two petitions filed by A-3 in C.C.Nos.5973 of 2006 and 5974 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In both the cases A-1 to A-3 therein are accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Even as per allegations in the complaint, the dishonored cheques were issued by A-2 G. Madhubabu, with his signature styling him as Proprietor of A-1/M/s.Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises. In C.C.No.5973 of 2006, A-1 is stated to be a proprietary concern represented by A-2 and A-3 (see paragraph No.2). In C.C.No.5974 of 2006 A-1 is stated to be a firm represented by A-2 and A-3 as its associates (see paragraph No.2). 3. As pointed out earlier, both the dishonored cheques in both the matters describe A-2 as Proprietor of A-1. Cause title in both the matters relating to description of A-1 is one and the same to the effect – M/s.Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises represented by its associates. 4. According to the first respondent/defacto complainant, A-2 and A-3 are looking after day-to-day affairs of A-1 and are therefore equally responsible for the dealings of A-1. Even though certain somersaults were made by the first respondent/complainant with regard to description of A-1 as firm at one stage and as a proprietary concern at one state, before this Court there is no dispute that A-1 is a proprietary concern and is not a partnership firm. 5. On that basis, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel relying upon Dr.V. Bala Raju v. Pashak Feeds (P) Ltd.,[1] and United Phospherus Limited v. Sri Saiteja Fertilizers and Pesticides[2] of this court that when concern is a proprietary concern, there is no concept of there being two Proprietors of a proprietary concern and that in case there are two Proprietors of equal importance and equal shares, then it becomes a partnership firm. Admittedly, A-1 is not a partnership firm much less a registered partnership firm. Therefore, it is contended by the first respondent’s counsel that A-1 is an association of individuals which is included within the definition of a ‘company’ as per explanation to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. The first respondent’s counsel placed reliance on Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat[3] of Supreme Court and contended that an association of individuals is one in which two or more persons joined in common purpose and common action to achieve some common benefit. In order to bring A-1 within the meaning of association of persons described in RAMANLAL, the first respondent introduced a letter, dated nil said to have been given by A-2 as Proprietor of A-1 to the first respondent/ defacto complainant, wherein it was stated that he and A-3 were working in association with each other and have commercial interest, and requesting the first respondent to supply stocks as per orders of either himself or A-3, so that A-1 will abide by that. 7. This Court in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot look into the said undated letter, which was introduced for the first time in these Criminal Petitions. The said letter was neither pleaded nor filed along with the complaints in the lower Court. 8. In a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court has to see whether a case is made out on the allegations contained in the complaint read with the documents appended along with the complaint. Documents filed along with the complaint do not include the above undated letter. In any event, the petitioner/A-3 is not a party to that letter and it is not going to bind him if somebody else says otherwise. It is stated that A-3 is no other than the brother-in- law of A-2 and he was also associated in the business of A-1. 9. At this stage, a reference to RAMANLAL is again necessary. It was a decision rendered by the Supreme Court while interpreting provisions relating to Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960. It was observed therein that the terms “association of persons” and “body of individuals” have a legal connotation and referred to an entity having rights and duties and that they are not to be understood literally. Apart from A-1 being a proprietary concern in which A-2 is a sole Proprietor, there is no legal entity constituting A-2 and A-3 put together. Therefore, it cannot be said that A-2 and A-3 are associated persons with regard to A-1 proprietary concern. 10. In law, literal meanings cannot have any place and only legal sense has relevance. Thus, viewed from any angle, A-3 has absolutely nothing to do with A-1 proprietary concern and that it was A-2 who issued the cheques in question styling him as Proprietor of A-1 concern. Therefore, A-3 cannot be impleaded much less mulcted with any Penal liability in the cases relating to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A3’s prosecution in these two criminal cases is nothing but abuse of process of law. 11. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.Nos.5973 of 2006 and 5974 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioner/A-3 is concerned. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 08, 2010. PN HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7777 of 2007 and 7780 of 2007 July 08, 2010 [1] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 651 (AP) [2] 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 240 (A.P.) [3] (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 449