MP 1 APEAL487_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2011 M/s. Desai Traders through Dilip A. Desai ... Appellant Versus Mahalaxmi Tyres and Auto Services and others ... Respondents Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. U. V. Kejriwal, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 11TH OCTOBER 2011 P. C. : Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who is the original complainant. 2. Complainant is a partnership firm, which deals in the business of retreating rubber. Accused No.1 Mahalaxmi Tyres and Auto Service is also a partnership firm, of which accused Nos.2 and 3 are the partners. According to the complainant, the complainant had supplied retreating rubber to the accused No. 1 firm, for which four cheques of different amounts were issued. The cheques, on presentation, were dishonoured. In spite of service of notice on accused No.1, no payment was made. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 had refused to accept the notice. Therefore, the case was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("said Act" for short). After the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused accused No.2 who was the managing partner, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. Accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and was also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. and in default to pay the amount, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The total amount of four cheques was Rs. 83,595/-. The complainant seeks to prefer appeal against acquittal of accused No.3 P.B. Ghatage. MP 2 APEAL487_11 3. Perused the complaint, evidence led by the parties, the statement of accused No.3 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the reasons given by the Trial Court for his acquittal. The title of the complaint itself shows that the accused No.2 M.K. Kaloor is the Managing Partner of the firm. The complaint does not show that the accused No.3 was a Managing Partner and/ or was looking after the day-to-day business of the firm. Accused No.3 has specifically stated in statement under Section 313 that he was only the sleeping partner and his signatures were obtained on the cheques for handing over the same as a security while he himself did not know anything about the transaction between the complainant and accused No.1 firm. The trial Court held that even though the cheques bear signatures of the accused Nos.2 and 3 both, the transaction had actually taken place with accused No.2 as a managing partner of the firm and he had handed over the said cheques to the complainant. 4. Taking into consideration these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the accused No.3 appeared to be a sleeping partner of the accused No.1 firm, and therefore, he was acquitted. Section 141 of the said Act clearly provides that only a partner of the firm, who is responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm, may be held guilty for the offence under Section 138. It is true that in the present case, the cheques were signed by both the partners, however, in view of the facts and circumstances noted above, and particularly, the contents of the complaint itself, which goes to show that the accused No.2 was the managing partner and not accused No.3, I do not see any illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in respect of the accused No.3. 5. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. (J. H. BHATIA, J)