A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
|
Head Note
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 , Section 142 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 190 (1)
Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint - Power of Attorney Holder - Cognizance of offence - Taking of by Magistrate - Except mentioning in the cause title there is no mention of, or a reference to the Power of Attorney in the body of the said complaint nor was it exhibited as part of the said complaint - In the list of evidence there is just a mere mention of the words at serial no.6 viz. "Power of Attorney", however there is no date or any other particulars of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the complaint - Even in the verification statement made by the respondent no.2, there is not even a whisper that she is filing the complaint as the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant - Even the order of issue of process does not mention that the Magistrate had perused any Power of Attorney for issuing process - Held that the Magistrate wrongly took cognizance - The proceedings in question against the appellant quashed.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 , Section 142 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 190 (1)
Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint - Power of Attorney Holder - Cognizance of offence - Taking of by Magistrate - Without prima facie establishing the fact as to whether the Power of Attorney existed in first place and whether it was in order - Held that it was open to the Magistrate to take cognizance.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 , Section 142 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 190 (1)
Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint - Power of Attorney Holder - Complaint was filed by one claiming to be general power of attorney of the complainant company - The complaint was not signed either by Managing Director or Director of the company - PW-1 is only the employee of the company - As per Resolution of the company i.e. Ex-P3 under first part Managing Director and Director are authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution - Under third part of the said Resolution they were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear on their behalf in the court and engage lawyer etc. - But nothing on the record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company - This apart Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence - Held that Magistrate by rightly acquitted the appellant.
Topic(s)-Dishonour of Cheque - Cognizance of offence - Taking of by Magistrate