IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint filed in the name and on behalf of company by its employee even without necessary authorization can be rectified by marking necessary documents at a later stage.

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—This revision is directed by the complainant in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2004 filed to recall and examine P.W.3 to mark documents in the above criminal case.

2. The case in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 is a private complaint filed by the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The value of the cheques involved is Rs.27 lakhs. The direction was issued by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1633 of 2003 on 20.1.2004 to dispose the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of that Order. The complainant was cross-examined on 25.2.2004. During the cross- examination, it was suggested that the complaint has been filed without authorisation of the complainant company, which made the complainant to file Criminal M.P.No.1637 of 2004 under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant, viz. P .W .3 and mark the documents relating to the authorisation for filing complaint.

3. The petition was opposed by the accused by filing counter that the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.13773 of 1999 disputing the authority of S. Madhu, who filed the complaint on behalf of the complainant company, that he has not been properly authorised. The complainant company had sought to substitute the said S. Madhu with N. Singaravelan, which made the accused to file Crl.R.C.No.615 of 2000 challenging the substitution. This Court dismissed the Criminal Original petition and the Criminal Revision directing the accused to raise the issues during the enquiry in the criminal case. The substituted representative of the company Singaravelan was examined as P.W.3 on 19.2.2003 and was cross-examined on 25.2.2004. The injustice will be caused to the accused, if permission is granted to the complainant company to mark the documents other than the memorandum and articles of association of the complainant company. After filing the petition under Section 91, Cr.P.C. by the accused and after cross-examination of P.W .3, the complainant has filed this Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2004 subject matter of this Criminal Revision Case.

4. The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing both parties dismissed the petition stating that since the accused have no objection, the memorandum and articles of association alone can be marked. It is also stated in the Order that since direction had been issued by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13773 of 1999 and Crl.R.C.No.615 of 2000 dated 20.1.2004 to dispose the matter as early as possible and since the evidence on the side of the complainant is almost over, the complainant cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in respect of the defects pointed out by the accused and since the C.C.No.2546 of 1999 is filed as early as in 1999.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that besides the memorandum and articles of association of the complainant company, the other documents being extract of the Board Resolution dated 26.11.1997 to execute a power of attorney in favour of Mr. Yogesh Kapadia, the Managing Director of the complainant company; Power of attorney dated 16.2.1998 executed by the Directors in favour of Mr. Yogesh Kapadia; Power of attorney executed by the Managing Director in favour of Mr. Madhu dated 15.6.1998 and Extract of Board Resolution authorising Mr. Madhu to represent the company dated 21.7.1999 are necessarily required to be marked in this case. In this regard the learned counsel also submitted that during the cross-examination of P. W .3 on 25.2.2004 it was suggested that the complaint had been filed without authorisation to which P .W .3 replied that there are documents and so the complainant may be permitted to produce the same. The petition Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2004 has been filed to recall P.W. 3 and mark the said documents. The learned counsel further contended that there is no lacuna and to fill up such lacuna, the documents sought for have