The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority and responsibility of the person filing a complaint on behalf of a company, as well as the principles of authorization and representation of a corporation or company by a duly authorized agent.

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in PCR No. 1111/99 (CC No. 30083/2000) on the file of the XIII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore.

2. The brief facts for consideration are as follows :-

A cheque for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs issued by Vyalikaval House Building Co - operative Society Limited, Bangalore, bearing signatures of the petitioner issued to the respondent-Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Bangalore, came to be dishonoured with an endorsement-insufficient funds. As such, the payee of the cheque (respondent), after complying with the requirements of issue of notice for settlement, lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. against the petitioners seeking prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned Magistrate after taking the congnizance, recorded the sworn statement of one Sri V. Thyagaraja, Manager of the Payee-Bank and by an order dated 22.1.2000, issued process against the petitioners.

3. Challenging the action of taking cognizance and issue of process, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. R.P. 150/2000. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the petition and hence the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the payee of the dishonoured cheque is an incorporeal person. It is contended that under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. the court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act, only upon the receipt of a complaint by the payee of the cheque or the holder in due course. It is contended that from the averments made in the complaint, the payee -Bank had authorized its Managing Director to present the complaint. But the complaint is signed and presented by one v. Thyagaraja, stated to be the Manager of the payee Bank. It is contended that since the Manager is an unauthorized person as per the averments in the complaint itself, presentation of such complaint, taking cognizance of the same and ordering the registration of a case and issuing process, are all illegal and unsustainable in law.

5. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon the following pronouncements :-

M/s. Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu Rep. Vandana Chemicals etc. 1994 (1) Crimes 820.

M/s. Satish And Company v. M/s. S. R. Traders and others, 1998 Cri LJ 419

M/s. Credential Finance Limited v. State of Maharashtra 1999 Cri. LJ 1032

6. On the other hand, arguing in support of the action. Counsel for the respondent contended that no doubt under the bye-laws of the respondent-Bank and the authorisation, it is the Managing Director who is authorized to file the complaint. But since the Managing Director himself has authorised the present Manager, Sri V. Thyagaraja by an authorisation letter dated 19.11.1999 to file the complaint, there is no illegality in filing of the complaint. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of P.A. VERGHESE vs. CAMPION BUSINESS ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS 1998(2) Crimes 85.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel in detail and perused the records of the case as well as the decisions relied upon by both the sides.

8. It is to be noted that the word `complainant' is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also well settled that any person can set the law in motion except in case where the statute has specifically provided otherwise. The word person as defined in Indian Penal Code includes "any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not". Under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act : "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course." It is well settled that when the payee or the holder in due course is an incorporate body, since it cannot