THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5031 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Nallamilli Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Ammi Reddy … Petitioner/Accused No.3 AND 1. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent/Respondent 2. M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited … Respondent/Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5031 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A3 is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) in CC.No.547 of 2007 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A1 is a partnership firm in which A2 is the Managing partner and A3 and A4 are partners. Towards the amount due to the 2nd respondent/complainant, A2 as Managing partner of A1, had drawn the cheque for Rs.1,51,000/- in favour of the complainant and the said cheque was ultimately dishonoured. In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused is dealer of the complainant company who supplied pesticides and other agri related products to the accused on credit basis under different invoices on different dates under regular account. It is further alleged that A3 and A4 are partners as well as family members and all of them were in charge of day- to-day activities of A1 and that A2 issued the cheque in question with the knowledge and consent of A3 and A4. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Central Bank of India Vs. Asian Global Limited[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that for launching a prosecution against the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act, there should be a specific allegation in the complaint in regard to the part played by A3 in the transaction in question and that the allegations had to be clear and unambiguous showing that a partner was incharge of and responsible for the business of the company. In the case on hand, A1 firm is a dealer of the complainant company. Towards goods supplied by the complainant company on credit basis under different invoices on different dates, a regular account is maintained between the two establishments. Towards the amount due under that account, the cheque in question was issued. It is specifically averred in the complaint that A3 and A4 besides being family members of A2, are partners in A1 firm and are incharge of the day-to-day activities of A1. It is further alleged that A2 had drawn the cheque with the knowledge and consent of A3 and A4. IN view of the above specific allegations of participation in the business of A1 and in drawing the cheque by A2 on behalf of A1 with the knowledge and consent of A3 and A4, it cannot be said that there are no valid allegations to maintain the complaint against A3 also. It is a matter to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties as to the role of A3 in the transactions covered by the account and drawing of the cheque in favour of the complainant towards the amount due under the account. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A3 retired from A1 firm with effect from 01.04.2006 by executing partnership admission and retirement deed dated 01.04.2006 and that A3 also sent resignation letter. This plea regarding retirement of A3 from the partnership firm is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into and decided in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner/A3 to plead the same in the lower Court and lead evidence in support of it, so that the lower Court will decide the same on merits. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings insofar as the peitioner/A3 is concerned. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 24.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5031 of 2009 DATED: 24.02.2011 ysk [1] (2011) 1 Surpreme Court Cases (Cri) 167