Back
2005(1) Bankmann 200
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
P.S. Narayana, J.
The Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of
India Ltd., (TRIFED) — Appellant
versus
B.P. Exporters & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 959
and 960 of 1999
Decided on 14.10.2004
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant (in both appeals):Mr. S. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals):Mr. L. Ravi Chander, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals): Public Prosecutor.
IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint cannot be dismissed for want of authorization.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Appeal against acquittal—Main ground of acquittal that complaint not filed by authorized person—Affidavit of counsel and Zonal Manager authorizing Regional Manager was not marked by an oversight—It would be just and proper to afford opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence to decide the matter afresh. (MMTC Ltd. v. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P.) Ltd., 2002 SCC (Crl.) 121. relied).
Held: In view of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the affidavit sworn to by the counsel who represented the complainant before the learned Magistrate and also the affidavit of the Zonal Manager and in the light of the ratio in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 121, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, on this aspect also and decide the matter afresh.
Hence, the impugned orders in both the Criminal Appeals are hereby set aside and the matters are remitted back to be the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to afford an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if any, and decide the matter afresh. (Paras 4, 5)
Result: Appeal allowed accordingly.
P.S. Narayana, J.—Both the Criminal Appeals are filed by the Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager, Hyderabad, against the Orders made in C.C. No. 511 of 1996 and C.C. No. 375 of 1996 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The Ist respondent is the accused B.P. Exporters, represented by its Proprietor. These complaints were filed under Section 138 of the negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for prosecution and punishment for dishonouring of cheque issued in question.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that the main ground on which acquittal had been recorded is that it is not proved that P.W.1 is authorized to lodge the complaint. The learned counsel submits that the affidavit of the counsel and also the affidavit of the Zonal Manager are filed who had sworn that even at the time of filing of complaints, the letter dated 23-4-1996 authorizing the Regional Manager was filed before the Learned Magistrate but unfortunately due to oversight the said document was not marked. In M.M.T.C. Limited v. Mdechl Chemical and Pharma (P) Ltd.1, the Apex Court while dealing with the maintainability of a complaint by Company and competence to file the same held that:
“Complaint filed in the name and on behalf of company by its employees without necessary authorization, such a complaint nonetheless maintainable and want of authorization can be rectified even at a subsequent stage.”
4. In view of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the affidavit sworn to by the counsel who represented the complainant before the learned Magistrate and also the affidavit of the Zonal Manager and in the light of the ratio in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 121, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, on this aspect also and decide the matter afresh.
5. Hence, the impugned Orders in both the Criminal Appeals are hereby set aside and the matters are remitted back to be the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to afford an opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if any, and decide the matter afresh.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. It is needless to say that since the matters are being remitted, the learned Magistrate to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed accordingly.
*******
