IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by a firm filed by its Manager can not be dismissed on ground that there was no authorisation in favour of Manager at the time of filing of complaint as defect can be rectified at any stage.

S.R. Bannurmath, J. - These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 27176 and 27177 of 2000 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the other dated 22-2-2000 for Es. 1,52,200/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank. Malleswaram. Bangalore.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitioner are as follows:

The respondent-Corporation has filed private complaints under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that thepetitioner had borrowed certain amounts from the complainant and in this regard towards the repayment of the same he had issued two cheques one dated 15-2-2000 for Rs. 1,60,000/- and the other dated on Indian Overseas Bank, Malleswaram, Bangalore. It is alleged that when the cheques were presented for collection the same were returned with endorsements "insufficient fund". It is contended that in spite of issuing legal notices as required by the law which came to be returned with endorsements from the Postal Department "not claimed return to sender". Thereafter another notice also sent which was received by the petitioner but as no payment was made the present private complaints filed to take action and punish as per law.

3. On presentation of the complainants the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the cases in P.C.R. Nos. 693 and 696 of 200Q. After recording the sworn statements of the complainant the learned Magistrate ordered issue of process to the accused petitioner.

4. As such being aggrieved by the orders dated 18-9-2000 issuing process to the petitioner passed by the learned Magistrate the present petitions are filed. The main contentions raised in the petitions are regarding the competency of the Manager of the respondent/company. It is contended that under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act no suit and proceedings shall be instituted unless the firm is registered and the person suing has been shown in the register of the firms as a partner. As such it is contended that basically Manager cannot file the complaints. It is also contended that even if it is held that Manager can file a complaint as on the date of filing of the complaint as the said Manager has not filed the authorisation or power of attorney from the firm the learned Magistrate should have held that the Manager has no locus standi to file the complaints and as such initiation of the proceedings and' issue of process is illegal and liable to be quashed. In this regard, several pronouncements of various Courts have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. These are as follows:

1. Ruby Leather Exports v K. Venu.1;

2. S. Ramaswamy Sudarshan Rao2;

3. Sudesh Kumar Sharma v K.S. Selvamani and Others3;

4. S. Krishnamurthy v A.R. Rajan4;

5. Mis. Mohanlal Khemchand and Others v Pavan Kumar Mohanka and Other5;

6. P.A. Verghese and Others v M.A.A. Communications Private Limited6;

7. Mis. Satish and Company v M/s S.R. Traders and Others7:

8. Mis. Swastik Coaters Private Limited v Mis. Deepak Brothers and Other8;

9. M.A. Hussain and Another v. Panchamal Vasudev Ganapath Kamath and Brothers and Another9;

5: On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the complainant that these decisions are not applicable to the present cases. It is contended that there is no prerequisite condition of filing any authorisation while filing a criminal case. The question whether a person has authorisation or not has to be decided only at the final hearing stage of the case and keeping in view the .well-settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court insofar as exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, these are not fit cases to interfere and quash the proceedings at the initial stage itself. It is also submitted that absolutely there is no prejudice ca