News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 219 | 2026:CGHC:14528
March 27, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has restored the conviction of an accused in a ₹30 lakh cheque bounce case, holding that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be maintained against a partner even if the partnership firm is not made a party.
In a judgment delivered on March 27, 2026, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas allowed a criminal revision filed by the complainant, setting aside an earlier appellate court order that had acquitted the accused.
The case arose from a financial transaction dating back to 2014, when the complainant alleged that she had advanced ₹30 lakh to the accused, who was engaged in construction and land dealings. According to her, the amount was given as a short-term loan, repayable within three to four months. When the money was not returned, the accused issued a cheque in July 2016, which was later dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Despite legal notice, the payment was not made, prompting the complainant to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment and directing payment of ₹30 lakh as compensation.
However, the appellate court overturned the conviction, primarily on the ground that the partnership firm associated with the accused had neither been impleaded as an accused nor served with a statutory notice.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning. It held that a partnership firm does not have a separate legal personality distinct from its partners, unlike a company. As a result, liability in such cases is joint and several, meaning partners can be held accountable even if the firm itself is not formally named in the complaint.
Relying on recent Supreme Court precedent, the court clarified that proceedings against a partner are legally sustainable without impleading the firm or issuing notice to it. The judge emphasized that a partnership is merely a collective name for its partners, and the absence of the firm as a party does not invalidate the complaint.
Importantly, the High Court noted that the appellate court had not disturbed the trial court’s findings regarding the commission of the offence. Since those findings had attained finality, the acquittal was found to be legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the court restored the conviction and modified the sentence. The accused has been directed to pay the cheque amount of ₹30 lakh along with an additional 10% as compensation within four months. Failure to comply will result in six months of rigorous imprisonment.
The ruling reinforces the legal position that in cheque bounce cases involving partnership firms, procedural lapses such as non-impleading of the firm do not automatically defeat the complaint, provided the liability of the partner is established.
Case Reference : CRR No. 1367 of 2025, Smt. Birja Zena vs. Yashraj Mehra; Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate; Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate.
