IMPORTANT POINTS
When the Negotiable Instruments Act clearly states that only the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque alone can file the complaint and the Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only based on such complaint, a power of attorney holder or an authorized agent of a Company cannot file a complaint in his personal capacity, even though he mentioned his designation in the Company in the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

The above appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No.205 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. The above calendar case was filed by the appellant against the first respondent herein for prosecuting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter the parties are mentioned by their rank before the trial court).

2. The complainant is 'Jose P.P., Manager, Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mattoor, Kalady'. The case of the complainant is that the accused had purchased rice from the complainant firm for Rs.61,331.25 paise and out of which, an amount of Rs.30,000/-is due to the complainant. When the complainant demanded the said amount, the accused informed that he would repay the amount in three installments and issued three cheques for Rs.10,000/-each. The complainant presented the cheques for encashment. But, those cheques were dishonoured from the bank with an endorsement "Funds insufficient," on 06.09.1999, 07.09.1999, and 16.09.1999 respectively. The complainant issued a statutory notice in accordance to the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 18.09.1999 and the accused received the same on 20.09.1999. Even after the receipt of the notice, the accused did not repay the cheque amounts. Hence, the complaint.

3. To substantiate the case, one witness was examined on the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P7 are also marked. Ongoing through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that the accused is guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.31,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of the said amount, there is a further direction to the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused were set aside mainly for the reason that the complaint is not filed by the payee or holder in due course. Challenging this acquittal order, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the acquittal order passed by the appellate court is per se illegal. According to the counsel, as per Ext.P7, the complainant is an authorized person to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the Company. Therefore, it is stated that the findings of the lower appellate court that, the complaint is filed by an individual and not by the 'Company' or 'Company represented by the Manager', is not correct. The Counsel relied on the judgments of the Madras High Court reported in Sagayadurai and Ors. V. J.D. Electronics [1997 (2) Crimes 115 (Mad.)] and in A. Krishnan v. S.P.Kumar [2001 CRL.L.J.3494]. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, reported in M/s. Mohonlal Khemchand and others v.Pawan Kumar Mohanka and others [1996 CRL.L.J. 2927].

7. The counsel for the accused submitted that the complaint is filed by an individual and not by the Company or the Company represented by the Manager. The complainant has no case that, he became the holder in due course of the cheques. Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable, and hence the appellate court correctly allowed the appeal.

8. After hearing both sides, the point to be decided in this appeal is, whether a complaint filed by an authorized person of a Company is maintainable when the payee or the holder in due course of the cheques is the Company itself.

9. Admittedly, in this case, the payee in the cheques is 'Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd'. The statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is issued by Jose P.P., Manager,