B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.

( 2 ) THE present petition is filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 413 of 1997 on the file of the XVII metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 read with section 141 (Sic. 141) of the Negotiable instruments Act (for short the Act ) against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the sole accused.

( 4 ) THE complaint inter alia reads that the petitioner-accused is the sole proprietor of one M/s. Deccan Marketing Service. It is alleged in the complaint that M/s. Shree industries, which was the sole proprietary concern of Smt. Shiela Jalan w/o Sanjay Jalan, in due course of business transaction, supplied goods to the petitioner-accused on the basis of a running current account. During the accounting year 1-4-1990 to 26-4-1993, it had supplied material worth about rs. 34,40,917-03 ps. including the carry forward balance, to the accused. As against, that supply, the accused made a payment of rs. 32,78,239-90 ps. Subsequently, the said m/s. Shree Industries supplied further material worth Rs. 4,65,850/- under Invoice dated 24-5-1991. Acknowledging the liability incurred by him, the petitioner herein is alleged to have issued a cheque on 1-4-1994 to M/s. Saree Industries for a sum of rs, 10,50,607-32 ps. towards part-payment of the said liability.

( 5 ) IT is further alleged that in discharge of the above-said liability, the petitioner is alleged to have issued a cheque dt. 1-3-1997 for a sum of Rs. 17,56,130-71 ps. , and the complainant presented the above cheque on 26-3-1997 with its banker and the same was returned/dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient Funds" vide memo dated 26-3-1997 and the same was intimated to the respondent-complainant vide Debit Advice on 27-3-1997. It is under those circumstances, the 2nd respondent filed the complaint.

( 6 ) IT is not proper for this Court at this stage to express any opinion whatsoever with regard to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner herein.

( 7 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed by one mr. P. Babu Rao, who is admittedly the peronnel Officer of the said company. It is stated that the complainant himself filed an extract of Minutes of the Board Meeting of the Company dated 19-4-1997 and that as per the said extract of the Minutes of the board Meeting, the Board of the Company resolved to authorise one Mr. Sanjay Jalan (shown as a witness) to file Criminal and civil cases and give evidence on behalf of the company and that in the later half of the same resolution, it was also resolved by the complainant-Company that Mr. Sanjay Jalan is authorised to sub-delegate the powers delegated to him by the Board to any of the officers of the Complainant-Company.

( 8 ) SRI Y. Ratnakar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the question of sub-delegation by Mr. Sanjay Jalan doesnotarise, inasmuch as the Board by its resolution specifically authorises Sanjay Jalan alone to file Civil and Criminal Cases on behalf of the company. There is specific authorisation in the said resolution to the said Sanjay Jalan, whereas the present complaint is filed by the personnel Officer purporting it to be under the delegation of Mr. Sanjay Jalan. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is filed not by an authorised person to launch prosecution against an authorised person. No prosecution under section 138 of the Act could be launched, unless the Company gives a specific authorisation to launch such prosecution.

( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of this Court in Swastic Coalers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Brothers and another and Satishand Co. v. S. R. Traders and others in support of his submission.

( 10 ) IT is required to notice that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document