IMPORTANT POINT
Manager or any other person authorised by the Company can represent it during the course of legal proceedings before the Court & file a complaint u/s. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

Pratap Singh, J. - The accused in S.T.C. No. 945 of 199 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore have filed this petition under Section 482, Crl. P.C. praying to call for the records in he above case and quash the same.

2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners, for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as "the Act"). The allegations in it are briefly as follows:

In respect of purchases made by the first accused from the complainant, there is outstanding balance of Rs. 20,87,600 and interest therein. Towards the said liability, the first accused issued three cheques dated 21.12.1991, 18.12.1991 and 28.12.1991 for Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively in favour of the complainant. Those cheque were signed by the second accused, as Managing Director of the first accused. The complainant presented the said cheques for encashment. All the three cheques were dishonoured on the ground "not arranged for". The complainant received memos of dishonour on 4.2.1992. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 11.2.1992, calling upon the accused to pay the amount of the three cheques, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The firs accused received notice on 13.2.1992. The notice issued to the second accused was returned with endorsement "not claimed returned to sender". The second accused had evaded the service of the said notice. The first accused had sent a reply. The second accused is the Managing Director of the first accused. He is directly incharge of and responsible to the first accus0ed company for the conduct of his business. He is the person who had signed the dishonoured cheque. Hence the complaint.

3. Mr. K.V. Sridharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that,

(i) the list of witnesses is not given in the complaint, as enjoined by Section 204(2), Crl. P.C. and hence it is liable to be quashed.

(ii) The complaint is filed by the manager, representing South India Viscose Ltd., a public company and that such presentation by the Manager on behalf of a public limited company, is not a valid presentation of the complaint and on that score it is liable to be quashed.

(iii) The three cheques, which are the subject-matter of this complaint are post dated cheques.

(iv) There is difference with regard to the date on which the complainant got memo of the bank informing the dishonour of the cheque.

I have heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned senior counsel, on the above aspects.

4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsels and I shall now consider the submissions made by Mr. K.V. Sridharan in seriatim. Regarding the first submission that no list of witnesses as enjoined by Section 204, Crl. P.C., is given in the complaint and hence it is liable to be quashed. I have to extract Section 204(2), Crl. P.C., which reads as follows.

"204. Issue of process:

(1) .....

(a) .....

(b) .....

(2) No summon or warrant shall be issued against the accused under Sub-sec. (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) .....

(4) .....

(5) .....

In Crl. O.P. No. 8136 of 1990, dated 14.12.19931, Justice T.S. Arunachalam had held that Section 204(2) is not mandatory and failure to furnish the list cannot result in quashing of the proceeding at the threshold. In view of the above position of law, this submission will have to necessarily fail.

5. Regarding the second submission, in Cri. O.P. No. 8731 of 19922 and other cases in which Justice T.S. Arunachalam had rendered judgment, the learned Judge had referred to Mis. Gopaiakrishnan Trading Co. v. D. Baskaran3, in which Justice Janarthanam had held that a Manager or any other person authorised by the company can represent it during the course of legal proceedings before the court and file a complaint. Justice Janarthanam had observed as follows:

"