2009(2)KLT991(SC), (2009)12SCC706
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. N. Agrawal and G. S. Singhvi, JJ.
Appellants: C.G. Praveen
Vs.
Respondent: Mohd. Tajuddin and Anr.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1338 of 2002, 813 of 2003, 440 and 443 of 2005
Decided On: 22.04.2009
Negotiable Instruments Act - Prosecution Quashing - Power of Attorney Holder
Fact of the Case:
The High Court quashed the prosecution of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder of the payee and not the payee himself.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder, as interpreted in Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. The High Court was not justified in quashing the prosecution of the respondent.
Issues: The issue revolved around the validity of the complaint filed by the power of attorney holder of the payee under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 142 of the Act and held that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case and conclude the trial within six months.
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2002
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed the prosecution of respondent No. 1 Mohd. Tajuddin under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") only on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder of the payee and not the payee himself. The question whether the signing of complaint by the payee himself is sine qua non for taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Act is no longer res integra. In Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.:(2008) 8 SCC 536, this Court interpreted Section 142 of the Act and held that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder. In this case, the complaint was filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder. This being the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the prosecution of respondent No. 1.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed. Now, the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.
4. As the complaint was filed in 1996, we direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. Criminal Appeal Nos. 813 of 2003, 440 of 2005 and 443 of 2005.
5. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2002, these appeals are allowed in the similar terms.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.