The complainant, who is not the payee or holder in due course of the cheque, has prima facie locus standi to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if he is authorized by the complainant company to do so. The issue of whether the complainant was actually authorized and whether he was the Manager (Administration) of the company are matters to be determined on factual evidence during the trial.

1. THIS revisional petition is directed against an order dated february 20, 1998 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta in case No. C-1944 of 1996 (T. R. No. 22 of 1998), pending trial under section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. BY the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioners-accused persons to quash the proceeding and to discharge them was refused.

At the outset, a little bit of the contextual facts be placed as hereinafter. The complainant-O. P No. 1 Gajanand Khandelwal filed a complaint in his official capacity as Manager (Administration) of M/s. Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. while also asserting that he had been duly authorised by the company to file the complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that at the request of the accused persons the complainant's company granted incorporated loan of Rs. 1 crore to the accused persons, and in discharge of the said liability in respect of the loan, the accused persons issued a cheque dated August 27, 1996 for Rs. 1 crore drawn on Sikkim Bank Ltd., R. N. Mukherjee road, Calcutta. The complainant's company presented the cheque for encashment on September 5, 1996 but the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient fund. Thereafter a statutory notice dates September 30, 1996 was issued by the complainant's company demanding payment within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The accused persons allegedly did not make any payment after receipt of the notice and, as such, a complaint for the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. The Chief Metroplitan magistrate, Calcutta took cognizance and, ultimately, issued process against the accused persons. The accused persons, subsequently, appeared before the Magistrate and were, thereupon, released on bail.

3. THEREUPON, a petition dated January 16, 1998 was filed on behalf of the accused persons with two-fold submissions, that the complainant neither being the payee nor the holder in due course of the cheque had no locus standi to file the complaint and that there has been already a part payment to the tune of Rs. 95,86,000/- and that the accused company was prepared and willing to pay the balance amount of rs. 4,14,000/ -.

4. UPON hearing the counsel for both the parties, the Ld. Court below was of the opinion that both the points as raised on behalf of the petitioners- accused persons could not be determined before recording evidence and, accordingly, at the stage it was not possible to determine without evidence that the complainant could not be treated as holder of the cheque or that the payment as asserted had actually been made. While appreciating the points raised on behalf of the petitioners, the Court below has placed reliance on the authorities reported in 1998 Cal WN 110 and AIR 1992 sc 2206 as also (1997)2 Cal HN 508.

I have been taken through the impugned order but I could not be persuaded so as to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners-accused persons to discharge the accused without recording the evidence and going into the factual score of the case.

5. IN so far as the locus standi of the complaint was concerned, I do feel inclined to give an extract of the complaint petition as contained in para one of the same :

"the Complainant is the Manager (Administration) and an authorised representative of M/s. Prudential Capital Markets Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant Company') having its registered office at Tobacco House, 2nd floor, 1 and 2, Old Court House Corner, Calcutta- 700 001. The Complainant is filing this complaint against the accused persons in his official capacity and for and on behalf of the Complainant Company and the Complainant Company has duly authorised the complainant to make and file this complaint. "

6. A plain and simple reading of the assertion as made by the complainant, referred to above, would most certainly make out a p