JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:-The appellant filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Firm Dhaliwal Trading Agency which was arrayed as accused No. 1. Accused No. 2-Dalbir Singh, Accused No. 3- Kulwant Kaur (respondent herein) and Accused No. 4-Rajinder Kaur were stated to be the partners of the accused-firm. It was contended that a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- was borrowed on behalf of the firm by its partners and had issued two cheques of Rs.9.00 lac each in favour of the appellant on behalf of the firm. One cheque bearing No. 627073 dated 25.10.1999 was signed by Dalbir Singh and other cheque bearing No. 627074 was signed by deceased Avtar Singh. Both the cheques were drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Doraha Branch, District Ludhiana in favour of appellant/complainant. Both the cheques stood dishonoured on presentation in the bank and the appellant filed two criminal complaints separately. 2. The learned trial Court on the evidence led by the appellant held accused No.2 - Dalbir Singh guilty for having defaulted in clearing the cheque amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- towards the complainant. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced him for the liability of Accused – firm being the partner of accused No. 1. However, the present respondent Kulwant Kaur was acquitted of the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by holding that there was no liability of respondent Kulwant Kaur for or on behalf of the accused firm to discharge any liability towards the complainant. 3. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that Kulwant Kaur was the partner of the firm and the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the partners of the firm are also jointly and severally liable for any act done by them for or on behalf of the firm. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard at length. 5. There is no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in as much as a finding was recorded by the trial Court that:- “Finding these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that complainant has failed to prove that accused No. 3 Kulwant Kaur was or has been a partner of firm accused No. 1 on whose behalf disputed cheque has been issued. Liability of accused No. 1 to pay amount in question to complainant therefore, cannot be foisted on accused No. 3 Kulwant Kaur because in these circumstances, she is not liable for the deeds of firm accused No. 1.” 6. On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the appellant, it was admitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent was a partner of the said firm. It is an admitted position that even the partnership deed was not placed on record. In fact, as recorded by the trial Court, a specific question was also put to CW2 S P Verma, Bank official in his cross examination qua any partnership deed. However, no record was summoned nor any document to prove that respondent was a partner was placed on judicial file. Admittedly, the present respondent has not even signed the cheque. 7. The case of the present respondent cannot be equated with that of accused No. 2-Dalbir Singh as he, at the first instance, is stated to have admitted being partner of the accused firm. 8. No other argument was raised. 9. Thus, there is no infirmity in the judgement and order dated 01.08.2008 passed by the trial Court acquitting the present respondent. Dismissed. ------------