1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH , SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.: 155 of 2008 Decided on: 17.10.2008 Romesh & Co. Fruits & Vegetables Commission Agent Petitioner Versus Kalyan Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Vijender Kaotch, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) The revision petitioner has assailed the order dated 3.7.2008 against the notice of accusation put to him, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. As a matter of fact, Sudershan Sharma and Ramesh Kumar were the partners of “M/S Ramesh & Company”, Fruits & Vegetables Commission Agent, both are alleged to have signed the cheque in question to discharge the liability, which bounced. The intimation by the banker was given to the respondent herein. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued to both the partners but in the meantime one of the partners, namely Ramesh died. However, the notice was served upon Sudershan Sharma, partner of the said firm, but payment was not made and a complaint was filed against ____________________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.yes 2 the petitioner herein. The proceedings against accused Ramesh Kumar stood abated because of his death on 24.12.2007 and on consideration of the material before the learned trial court , it was found that there was prima-facie sufficient material for presuming commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against Sudershan Sharma, the signatory of the cheque, as such he was summoned and a notice of accusation was put to him, to which he denied. According to the accused petitioner, there were three partners of the firm, out of which one had died, and no notice was served upon the third partner and the cheque in question became invalid because of death of one of the partners. 3. As a matter of fact, the petitioner aforesaid is one of the signatory of the cheque in question and despite notice, the amount was not paid, therefore, prima-facie there are reasonable grounds to issue process and there is also enough material to put the notice of accusation against him. Non-service of the notice on the third partner and death of one of the signatory of the cheque is not fatal to the prosecution of the complainant. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. 4. The Registry is directed to return the records of the case forthwith. October 17, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)