Back
1997 Supreme(Cal) 251
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.
Arun Kumar Dutta
Vs
M. M. Upadhyay & Anr.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3406 of 1996
Decided on : June 20, 1997
Biswanath Sanyal, Anil Kumar Das for the petitioner;
Priyabrata Mukherjee, Sumit Kumar Roy for the opposite party No.1.
Ms. Krishna Ghosh for the State.
The complaint filed on behalf of a company does not need to be authorized by the Board of Directors if the complainant is an employee acting on the authority given by the company's management.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint Authorization - The court held that the complaint filed on behalf of a company does not need to be authorized by the Board of Directors if the complainant is an employee acting on the authority given by the company's management. The court emphasized that technicalities should not invalidate proceedings when the case is otherwise proven, and directed the lower court to assign the case for expeditious disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of a company against the opposite party. The opposite party objected that the complaint was not duly authorized by the Board of Directors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint did not need to be authorized by the Board of Directors if the petitioner was acting on the authority given by the company's management. The court directed the lower court to assign the case for expeditious disposal.
Issues: Authorization of complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint filed on behalf of a company does not need to be authorized by the Board of Directors if the complainant is an employee acting on the authority given by the company's management. Technicalities should not invalidate proceedings when the case is otherwise proven.
Final Decision: The revisional petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the case is directed to be assigned to another learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal.
S. K. Tiwari, J.: This petition is directed against the order dated 20th June, 1996 passed in Case No. C/2045 of 91 by the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
2. The present petitioner filed a petition of complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of M/s. Greaves Cotton & Company Limited, Calcutta, against the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner is an employee of the said company and filed the petition of complaint on the strength of the authority given to him by the Deputy General Manager of the Company. The Opposite party raised an objection in the Court below that the complaint presented was not duly authorised by the Board of Directors. Hence, the cognizance taken of the offence was bad in law.
3. The learned Magistrate has upheld the contention relying on several authorities of this Court, the apex Court and other High Courts.
4. The Negotiable Instruments Act provides that if a cheque has bounced, the petition of complaint can be filed not only by the drawee but also by a holder in due course. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Madan Dey reported in AIR 1991 Cr.LJ 347, while dealing with the complaint filed on behalf of the Union of India, observed thus:
"A complaint has to be filed by an officer of the Union of India as representing Union of India, as Union of India has to exercise its power and authority through the officers competent to act on behalf of Union of India. The ends of justice should not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere technicalities even when the case is proved to the hilt and the accused is found otherwise guilty. The fact that the complaint was not filed by a person duly authorised cannot in our view render the proceedings incompetent or invalid. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak reported in 1984 Cr.LJ 647: AIR 1984 SC 718.
5. In the light of the aforesaid observations, if the learned Magistrate was of the view that the complaint was not presented by a proper person, he ought to have directed the complainant either to produce the resolution of the Board of Directors or should have directed a duly authorised person to come and sign the petition of complaint in the Court. It was certainly a technical matter which cannot throw out the litigant from the Court.
6. This revisional petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, is directed to assign the case to some other learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal in accordance with law. The interim orders are vacated.
Revisional application allowed.
