Criminal Misc. No. M-770 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-770 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.1.2009 Anil Prashar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. K.S. Jetley, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) It has been stated in the present petition that the petitioner was a sleeping partner in the firm M/s Sun Rice Mills, Rajpura. Counsel further submits that brother of petitioner was his attorney who had further given his power of attorney to Sat Pal. It has been further submitted that petitioner is permanently residing at 61, ROXBOROUGH AVENUE, ISLEWORTH MIDDLESEX – MIDDX, LONDON – U.K. TW7- 5HQ. Counsel further stated that act of attorney cannot bind him vicariously. It has been further stated that under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it is only the drawer of cheque who is responsible and all the partners cannot be held responsible. A reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Saraswathy Amma v. M/s Swil Limited 2000(3) Criminal Misc. No. M-770 of 2009 2 Recent Criminal Reports 315. A further reliance has been placed upon judgment of Kerala High Court rendered in Biju Jacob v. Annie Mathew and Others 2004(3) Recent Criminal Reports 453. Counsel has further relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Punjab State Co-op. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. v. M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Others 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 386 (P&H). Another judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner rendered in Mohandas v. Jayasamudri Trading Co. 2006(4) Civil Court Cases 380. Whether the petitioner was a sleeping partner or not? is a question of fact. Partnership deed is to be proved during the course of trial. Since the firm and all the partners are being prosecuted because partnership deed has been relied upon by the complainant, prima facie contention of the petitioner that he was a sleeping partner of the firm can be taken into consideration for a limited purpose i.e. for exempting personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court. Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel shall be binding upon him. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. On the furnishing of undertaking, the personal appearance of petitioner shall stand exempted. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner is residing in London, United Kingdom, service could not be Criminal Misc. No. M-770 of 2009 3 effected upon him and process of declaring him as Proclaimed Offender has been initiated. Offence under Section Negotiable Instruments Act is bailable. In case petitioner appears before the trial Court on or before 1.3.2009, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Court. Petitioner is given liberty to raise all arguments before the trial Court at appropriate stage. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 20, 2009 “DK”