IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because complaint is signed and presented by a person, who is neither as authorized agent nor a person empowered under the articles of Association or by any resolution of the Board to do so is no ground to quash the complaint. It is open to the de jure complainant-company to seek permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court.

Kumari Sanju Panda, J.—The petitioner in this revision challenges the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2010 confirming the order dated 17.4.2010 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in I.C.C. Case No. 259 of 2008.

2. The facts leading to the present revision are as follows:

Opposite party-company filed a complaint case stating therein that it dealt with production, manufacturing, marketing, and selling of sponge iron and other allied iron ore products. The revision petitioner, who was one of its customer, placed orders through its agent M/s. Jayanti Ispat, Raipur during 21.6.2007 and 24.12.2007 under different invoices and challans. Accordingly, various materials were supplied to the petitioner by the opposite party. The petitioner also made payment in intervals, however, by 24.12.2007 an amount of Rs. 72,22,037/- remained outstanding on the petitioner. As such, a request was made to clear the outstanding amount. On such request, in the month of December, 2007, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid. Thereafter, on 27.2.2008 the opposite party sent a written request to the petitioner for clearing the outstanding dues and submitting ‘C’ form as required by the Sales Tax Department. In the first week of March, 2008, the petitioner handed over cheques on different dates, in total amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/-, each of Rs. 5,00,000/- and promised that the entire outstanding dues will be cleared up before 20.4.2008. Seven cheques bearing numbers 678339 dated 21.3.2008, 678340 dated 24.3.2008, 678341 dated 26.3.2008, 678342 dated 29.3.2008, 678343 dated 3.4.2008, 678344 dated 8.4.2008 and 678345 and 14.4.2008 drawn’ on Nariman Point Branch of Central Bank of India. Mumbai amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/- which had been issued by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party were presented with its banker Andhra Bank, Sambalpur on 18.4.2008 for encashment. The bank informed that the cheques could not be honoured due to stop payment on the account as per the instruction of the drawer. As a consequence of the said dishonour of the cheques, the opposite party issued notice under Section 138 of the Act through one of its Directors asking to make payment within 15 days of the notice. The notice was sent by courier service, registered post and under certificate of posting. The notice were duly received by the addressee. As the petitioner made no response or payment, the opposite party filed the complaint case under Section 138 of the Act on 4.6.2008 within the stipulated time. The petitioner after receipt of notice appeared through its Director and denied to have any liability of Rs. 35,00,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party in support of its case examined himself as a witness, he also examined one Ramesh Kumar Agarwal who is one of the Directors of the Company and also produced the cheques, demand notice, postal receipt, postal A.D., etc. which were marked Exts. 1 to 10. However, the petitioner neither examined any witness nor filed any documentary evidence in support of his case. On the above, the Trial Court formulated four issues to be determined the case, which are s follows:

“1. Whether the accused issued seven cheques bearing No. 678339, 678340, 678341, 678342, 678343, 678344 & 678345 each of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant to discharge a legal debt/liability ?

2. Whether the complainant deposited the cheque within its valid period and whether such cheque was dishonoured only for reason of refer to drawer?

3. Whether the complainant took due step within given time of 30 days to serve the notice on the accused in the required manner and whether after due service of notice on the accused did not respond in a justified manner?

4. Whether the complainant lodged the complaint case within the limitation period, without any delay, or with an explained delay (if any) ?

The Trial Court recorded the finding that the cheques were deposited within the s