Partnership firm is a necessary party in prosecution under s

Partnership firm is a necessary party in prosecution under S.138 of NI Act

A further objection was raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that in the absence of a reply to the statutory notice issued under the Act, a presumption has to be drawn that the said cheque was issued on behalf of proprietary concern. It is true that the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner by describing the petitioner as a sole proprietress of Sai Santosh Constructions. Though the notice was served on the petitioner, no reply was sent to the said notice. Merely because the petitioner was shown as a proprietress and that no reply was given by the petitioner, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the petitioner when the documents filed along with the complaint and the Acknowledgment of Registration of Firms issued by the Registrar of firms, dated 19.11.2007 establish that Sri Sai Santhosh Constructions was represented as a partnership firm in the year 2007 itself. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in petitioner issuing the cheque as an authorized signatory of the firm. When once it is established, that it is a partnership firm and the cheque was issued by the managing partner of a firm, arraying the firm as an accused is necessary. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Aneeta Hada's case, wherein a three judge Bench of the Apex Court, while overruling the view taken in Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P.6, and clarifying judgment in Anil Hada v. Indian Acylic Ltd7, held that for maintaining a prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraying of a company as an accused is imperative and other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as stipulated in the provisions.