D.N. Prasad, J. - This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Code") for quashing the order dated 18-8-2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 655 of 2000 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. A complaint case was filed On behalf of M/s. Gopal Agency alleging therein that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. FINA LUBRICANT LTD. is dealing with the business of lubricants and husks and for the purpose of business dealing the petitioner has opened an account in the State Bank of India. Bart Pahari Branch. Biharshar if vide A/C No. CO 91 and has been granted by the Bank a cheque book which started from cheque Book No. 236481 onwards. In course of dealing with the business a substantial amount fell due payable to the complaint and thereafter the petitioner issued the following cheques in favour of the complaint:

TABLE

Sl. No.

Cheque No.

Date

Amount

Payable on

1.

236482

14-1-2000

3,00,000/-

State Bank of India, Bari-Pahari Branch

2.

236483

17-1-2000

2,00,000/-

-do-

3.

236484

21-1-2000

2,00,000/-

-do-

3. It is further alleged that those cheques were presented through their Bankers namely UCO Bank. Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur but the aforesaid cheques were bounced and information to this effect has been received by the complainant on 16-62000. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 22-6-2000 to the accused/ petitioner through its Advocate which was duly received by the accused on 3-7-2000 but the petitioner/accused did not bother to reply the same. Accordingly, this complaint case was filed. An enquiry under Section 202 of the Code was held and after finding a prima facie case made out against the petitioner the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as aforementioned.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly confined his argument that this complaint case is not maintainable and the learned court below committed error in taking cognizance as it is mandatory to see whether the complaint which has been filed by a power of attorney holder has got same locus standi or not and as such the complainant who is not having any authority to file the complaint case, has got no power to submit the complaint on behalf of the Company. It is further submitted that the complainant who has filed the complaint on behalf of the Company is neither a payee nor the holder and therefore, the impugned order is fit to be quashed.

5. From a perusal of the order it is manifest that one Shri Bihari Lal Sharma presented the complaint case who being represented by its Marketing Manager, is a duly constituted attorney. There is no denial of bouncing of three cheques issued by the petitioner I accused amounting to Rs. 7,00,0001(Rupees Seven Lacs) and for which, the Advocate's notice was issued to the petitioner which was duly received but nothing could be made from the side of the petitioner I accused. It further appears from the notice issued by the petitioner itself that the account of the petitioner was already closed on 8-8-1999 admitting the position about the bouncing of the three cheques. At the same time it is stated that three cheques said to have been lost by the petitioner but no any report or information was given to the authority to this effect. The complainant pointed out in paragraph 1 of the complaint it petition that he is being an authorized and duly appointed agent of Mis. Century Cement and is also represented by its Marketing Manager and duly constituted attorney.

6. Thus from the allegations made in the complaint, it is apparent that the learned court below has rightly took cognizance of the offence finding the prima facie case true as the allegation made out in the complaint sufficiently constitute the offences aforementioned.

7. In the result, I do not find-any merit in