Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.

18. In Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited9, the two Judge bench differed on the point whether a company has to be added as accused or not in a criminal case under AIR 1971 SC 447 = MANU/SC/0195/1970 MANU/SC/2118/2008 = 2008 (13) SCC 703 UDPR,J Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, the matter was referred to three Judge bench. Later, the three Judge bench of apex Court in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited10, held as follows:

20. In Rangabashyam's case (4 supra) High Court of Madras relying upon Aneeta Hada (10 supra) and Elangovan (3 supra), held as follows:

20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. In this case admittedly, the cheque was given in the name of the Partnership Firm and after the cheque was dishonored, no statutory notice was issued to the Partnership Firm, and the Partnership Firm was not made as an accused in the complaint. Only the partners have been shown as accused persons in this complaint. Such a complaint is unsustainable and not in accordance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.