Madras High Court
Deepak Gupta vs Raghvendra Steels Ltd., No. 59, ... on 14 August, 2001
ORDER
1. The petitioner filed an application for discharge from the case. It was rejected by the trial court, Hence, this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner was stated to be a partner of the accused No. 1 firm, the petitioner is not a partner at all and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of this contention, he also relies on Form "A" issued by the Registrar of Firms. A certified copy of the Form "A" reveals that from the year 1983 till 2000, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the list of partners. Therefore, on this same ground, the petitioner need not be made to face the trial unnecessarily.
3. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relied on a ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Bharat Kumar Modi v. Pennah Peterson Securities Limited, 2000 C.L.C. 88 which would say that Form 32 kept by the Registrar of Companies, though admissible in evidence, has to be proved in trial. To establish that a particular person is a partner of a firm, mere production of Form "A" is more than sufficient. This is also a public document. It requires no further proof.
4. The second point raised by the learned counel for the petitioner is that no notice was served on the partnership firm itself. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that a telegram was sent to all the partners including the firm, demanding the amount due by way of cheque which bounced. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mere sending of telegram cannot be said to be a valid notice tinder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This point is left open because in this case, already on the basis of Form A it has been clearly held that the petitioner was not a partner on the date of issuance of the cheque and on that score alone the petitioner is entitled to succeed. With the result, the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the revision stands allowed. Crl.R.P.Nos.1720 and 1721 of 2001 are closed.