IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint by person holding power of attorney on behalf of Company having full knowledge of transaction of the Company suffers no illegality.

M.P. Chinnappa, J. - The brief facts leading to these two petitions are that at the request, of Al the complainant undertook advertising of the products manufactured by Al against which the complainant raised invoices from time to time on various dates till 8-6-1993. The accused No.1 made certain payments towards the said supplies made by the complainant. After giving deduction to the payments made by A1, a sum of Rs. 13,76,914.78 was due to the complainant which amount the accused failed and neglected to pay to the complainant despite repeated demands and reminders. The accused No.1 issued three cheques towards payment of the sum due which are as follows:

Cheque No. 344578 dated 15-9-1993 for Rs. 6,00,185.92;

Cheque No. 344580 dated 30-9-1993 for Rs. 96,895.86; and

Cheque No. 344581 dated 30-9-1993 for Rs. 3,79,833.00 drawn on Canara Bank, Lavelle Road, Bangalore.

When these cheques were presented for encashment on 3-1-1993, the cheques were dishonoured by the Bankers of the accused with an endorsement "not arranged for". Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated 19-11-1993 calling upon the accused therein to pay the amount covered under the aforesaid cheques. The said notice was received by the accused on 20-11-1993 without any demur. Since the accused neither sent any reply nor settled the account, the complainant lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement directed to issue process to the accused persons. The said order is questioned by Antony Verghese who is said to be the Director by preferring Criminal Petition No. 821 194 and the Company representing its Director Antony Verghese and Tina Antony in Criminal Petition No. 1825/95 questioning the order.

2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. The petitioner has raised three contentions in his petition. Firstly, it is contended that the complaint was filed by a person who is said to be the power of attorney holder of the complainant - Company. Therefore the complaint ought to have been rejected by the Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence. The learned Counsel for the respondent repelling this argument submitted that it is a settled law that anybody who is having the knowledge of the affairs of the Company can file the complaint before the Court against the accused persons. Besides he being a P.A. holder, he is also working as Accounts Officer in the complainant-Company, he is aware, of all the transaction of the Company. Therefore the complaint is maintainable. In support of his argument he placed reliance on a decision reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal Page 1102. Where in the Madras High Court has held that – The P.A. holder can file the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In addition to that, he also placed a reliance in M/ s. Mohanlal Khemchand and Others v. Pawan Kumar Mohanka and Others1, wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that:

"On the' other hand, it has been argued by the opposite party that Section 138 as also Section 141 N. I. Act is as silent about the persons who is eligible to file a complaint under the said Act. Reference has been made to decisions reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 (1984 Crl. L.J . 647) of the same volume in the support of the contentions that unless there is an eligible criterion mentioned in the Act, another one can move the law into motion. It is argued that 142 N.I. Act empowered the payee or holder in due course to make the complaint. It is submitted that M/s. Albert Devid Ltd. is the holder in the due course and as he is a juristic person it must act through his officers as has been done in this case. Reference has been made to a case reported in 1993 Cal. Crl. L. R. 225. It has also been argued in terms of averment of the complaint it has been made clear that the complainan