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...........

 PLD 2024 Lahore 561
Muhammad Shahid Faqir vs ASJ/Justice of Peace Bhakkar.

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 in S. 489 - F , P.P.C. , business were also collectively liable for the offence under S.489 - F P.P.C -- Validity --- Term 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 of criminal liability for circumstances --- Determination 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 .