Back
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, S.A.BOBDE
A. C. NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that filing under Section 138 NI Act through a power of attorney holder is permissible, provided the POA is duly authorised; absence of explicit POA reference in the body of the complaint can render cognizance improper if not properly supported by POA documents. (!) (!) (!) - The power of attorney holder may depose and verify on oath to prove the contents of the complaint, but must have witnessed the transaction or possess knowledge; explicit assertion of the holder’s knowledge is required in the complaint. (!) (!) (!) - The power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he is the complainant, but may initiate proceedings on behalf of the principal; sub-delegation of functions requires explicit clause in the POA. (!) (!) - Larger Bench cases (A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra) held that filing through POA is legal, with guidelines on verification and attendance; however, defective filings lacking POA details or improper cognizance can lead to quashing of proceedings. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case discusses the need for explicit knowledge assertion in the complaint and the circumstances under which the POA holder can depose, including exceptions when the holder lacks knowledge. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
As the question of law involved is common in both the appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2007
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The accused-appellant, A.C. Narayanan challenged the common order dated 29th November, 2000 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Trial Court') by filing applications u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court. By the said common order the applications preferred by the appellant- A.C.Narayanan for discharge/recalling process against him was rejected by the Trial Court. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 12th August, 2005, dismissed the applications preferred by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Trial Court.
3. The appellant is the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Company M/s Harvest Financials Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") having its registered office at Bombay. Under a scheme of investment, the appellant collected various amounts from various persons in the form of loans and in consideration there
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
