2004(2) Bankmann 464
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.L. Kochar, J.
Ramesh — Applicant
versus
Ganeshchandra & Ors. — Respondents
M.Cr.C. No. 2150 of 2003
Decided on: 27.11.2003
Facts of the case:
A)This Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has been filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power attorney holder who was not the payee of holder of cheque in due course, hence the complaint filed by the power holder was attorney is not maintainable.
B)In view of the provisions of Power of Attorney Act, the complaint can be presented by the holder of Power of Attorney, but for the purpose of further prosecution, the presence of complainant is essential and if he appears and gives statement before the court, then there is no defect in filing the complaint.
Result: Petition dismissed.
S.L. Kochar, J.—This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed by applicant mainly on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder who is not the payee or holder of cheque in due course. Therefore, the compliant filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable.
2.The learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on (S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta)1 on the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/ complainant is that as per the Power of Attorney Act and the Judgment rendered by M.P. High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Dr. Anil Kumar and another v. Sant Praksh Gutpa2, the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be presented by the person holding power of attorney, payee or the holder of the cheque. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in M/s MMTC Ltd. and Another v. M/s Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd.3, and submitted that in the case in hand, though the complaint was filed by the holder of power of attorney on behalf of the complainant, but later on this defect has been cured. The complainant himself has appeared and signed on the complaint. This was done in pursuance of the revisional Order passed by the lower Revisional Court. In MMTC Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that though the complaint was filed on behalf of the company who was the holder of the cheque by unauthorized person, but the same defect is curable and on this account, the complaint cannot be quashed.
3. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties this Court is of the view that in view of the provisions of Power of Attorney Act, the complaint can be presented by the holder of Power of Attorney, but for the purpose of further prosecution i.e. under sections 200 and 202, the presence of the complainant is essential and if he appears and gives statement before the Court, then there is no defect in filing the complaint and the same shall be treated as cured.
4.In this view of the matter, as discussed above, there is no substance in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
* * * * *
3.M/s. MMTC Ltd. and Another v. M/s. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.