IMPORTANT POINT
A power of attorney holder can file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act if they have personal knowledge of the transaction, and this must be explicitly stated in the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding in complaint case no. 24862 of 2013, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, at Calcutta.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioner no.1 is the Company and Petitioner no. 2 is the Director of the company and both were made as accused no.1 and 3 in Complaint Case No. 24862 of 2013, initiated on the alleged violation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, presently pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Calcutta.

3. The WBIDC Ltd. as complainant, filed the case through Sri Gautam Chakrabarty claiming to be an Officer of the Law Department of WBIDC Ltd.

4. The Petitioners’ state and submit that the Complaint on behalf of WBIDC Ltd. was signed by Sri Gautam Chakraborty, in his capacity as Senior Assistant (Law), and also pleaded that he is empowered by the Complainant Company on the basis of a Board Resolution. The Petitioners state that no Copy of the Resolution by the Board of the Complainant Company was filed along with the Complaint to show or prove that Sri Gautam Chakraborty is authorized to sign the Complaint and be examined, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and without such authorization, the Learned Court issued summons which is an abuse of the process of law and amounts to injustice.

5. That Sri Gautam Chakraborty authorized representative of the Complainant did not plead and make specific assertion that he has knowledge of the transaction.

6. The authorized representative of the complainant did not say in the initial deposition on affidavit that he witnessed the transaction, as an agent of the payee being WBIDC Ltd and also did not state that he possessed due knowledge regarding the transaction.

7. That in the written initial Deposition on Affidavit, Sri Gautam Chakraborty claiming to be the representative of the Complainant Company, though stated that he is the authorized representative of the Complainant Company, did not file any document to substantiate his statement made on oath. Even in the initial Deposition Sri Gautam Chakraborty did not specify his age.

8. That Sri Gautam Chakraborty has filed the Examination in Chief on Affidavit along with documents, including an Authorization from WBIDC Limited.

9. That Sri Gautam Chakraborty, representing WBIDC Ltd, on oath in his Evidence on Affidavit filed on 28.02.2019, states that he is an employee working as Senior Assistant (Law), and in the Authorization of the Board of Director is stated that Sri Gautam Chakraborty is Deputy Manager (Law) of WBIDC Ltd and thus contradictory and incorrect and untrue statement on oath, made before the Court of Law.

10. That Sri Gautam Chakraborty in the evidence on Affidavit under Section 45 of the NI Act, 1881, stated that he is 35 years old and such evidence was filed on 28.02.2019 and in Cross examination on 10.03.2022 he stated that he is 56 years old, which amounts to giving false evidence before a Court of Law.

11. That Sri Gautam Chakraborty in cross examination stated that he was Senior Assistant (Law) in the year 2013 and in the Year 2016 he was promoted as Deputy Manager (Law), yet in the Evidence on Affidavit under Section 145 of the NI Act 1881 filed on 28.02.2019, he states that he is working as Senior Assistant (Law), and as such made incorrect and false statement before the Learned Trial Court.

12. That the notice dated 26.06.2013 given by the Complainant which was produced and taken for record and marked exhibit 4 was authored by Sri Debasis Konar, in his capacity as Deputy General Manager (Law), but Sri Gautam Chakraborty in his examination in Chief on 28.02.2019 stated that demand notice was sent by their Learned Advocate Sri Debasis Konar, which is an incorrect and false statement before the Court of Law.

13. Sri Gautam Chakraborty, authorized representative of the Complainant, in his evidence on Affidavit, in terms of Secti