Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 22-A & 22-B

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 29A---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, jurisdiction of---Dishonestly issuing a Cheque---Partnership firm---Liability of partners--Contention of the petitioner/complainant was that Ex-officio Justice of Peace had wrongly ordered to register the case against one of the partners only who signed the cheque: that the other two partners (respondents Nos. 4 and 6) being partners of the joint business were also collectively liable for the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C--Validity---Term "whoever" in S. 489-F, P.P.C., encompasses all offenders without distinction, whether natural or juristic persons---Corporation could be liable under S. 489-F, P.P.C. for dishonestly issuing a bad cheque---However, the guilt of an individual who authors the cheque on behalf of the corporation depends on his role, position, and authority within the organization and whether he holds the status of its "directing mind"---Certain provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 such as Ss. 10, 12 & 24, impose criminal liability on partners for the actions of another partner in specific circumstances---Determination of criminal liability for dishonestly issuing a cheque was governed by S. 489-F, P.P.C. read with S. 29A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ---All the elements of the offence must be established accordingly to hold a partner guilty---In the present case, respondents Nos. 4 and 6 were not the signatories of Cheque under question---Section 29A of the Act, ibid explicitly stated that no person is liable as a maker, drawer, endorser, or acceptor of a promissory note, bill of exchange, or cheque unless they have signed it as such---Therefore, respondents Nos. 4 and 6 could not be prosecuted under S. 489-F, P.P.C.---Importantly, the petitioner had submitted a copy of the Partnership Deed executed between respondents Nos.4 to 6 by which they established the firm---According to Clause 7 of the Partnership Deed, respondent No. 5 was designated as the firm's Managing Partner---Furthermore, Clause 8 stated that the firm would maintain bank account/accounts with selected bank/banks, which would be operated exclusively by respondent No. 5---Such clauses, along with others, indicated that while respondents Nos. 4 to 6 shared profits and losses equally, regardless of their capital contribution, respondent No. 5 was responsible for managing the business---In his application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner asserted that respondents Nos. 4 and 6 were present with respondent No. 5 during the business transaction conducted in his office---However, petitioner had neither alleged in the said application nor brought any evidence on record suggesting that respondents Nos. 4 and 6 were complicit in dishonesty with respondent No. 5 when cheque under dispute was issued---Impugned order did not call for interference by the High Court, in circumstances---Petition had no merit and was dismissed.

Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Limited AIR 2000 SC 145; Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and another v. State of Gujrat and another AIR 2004 SC 4274 and Kabir Akbar v. The State and others 2023 PCr.LJ 1588 ref.