A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act must be filed in the name of the corporate entity, and valid statutory notice of dishonour is a prerequisite for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. This appeal by the complainant is against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I Act’ for short).

2. As per the complaint, the accused purchased goods from the company in which the complainant is the Managing Director and towards payment of the amount due, the accused issued cheque dated 01.12.1997 for Rs.1,39,285.50.

3. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused and in spite of issuance of statutory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.

4. Before the trial court, from the side of the complainant, PW1 examined and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked and no evidence adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides and analysing the evidence, the trial court found that there is no valid notice as contemplated under Section 138 (b) of the N.I Act and therefore, the complainant has not succeeded in proving the offence under of the N.I. Act against the accused and hence, the accused was acquitted.

6. Heard Sri. Johnson P. John, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Nidhin Raj Vettikkadan, the learned State Brief representing the first respondent/accused and Sri. M.S. Breeze, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the second respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding of the trial court that the complainant filed the complaint on the basis of a second notice after dishonouring the cheque for the second time is without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner and the trial court ought to have found that apart from Exhibit P4 statutory notice, the complainant has not issued any previous notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I Act.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Exhibit P7, memorandum of association and articles of association of the company—Steel House Pvt. Ltd., would show that the complainant herein—Tenny Jose is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said company. In clause 32 of the articles of association, it is stated that Mr. Tenny Jose shall be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company. But, Exhibit P6, copy of the certificate of incorporation of the company–Steel House Pvt. Ltd. shows that the said company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 12.09.1996. The complainant, Tenny Jose, filed this complaint on 04.04.1998. But, no document is produced to show that the company authorised the complainant, Tenny Jose to file this complaint and the complainant has no case that the Board of Directors of the company passed any resolution authorising the complainant to file this complaint on behalf of the company.

9. The learned State Brief representing the accused/first respondent pointed out that the payee in Exhibit P1 cheque is M/s. Steel House Pvt. Ltd. and the complaint is filed by the Managing Director of Steel House against the Managing Partner of New Metalised Agency without disclosing the name and address of the said Managing Partner and further, PW1 has categorically admitted in cross examination that when Exhibit P1 cheque was previously dishonoured, he issued notice on 12.01.1998 informing about the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the cheque amount and that subsequently, the cheque was again presented for collection and the same was again dishonoured and thereafter, Exhibit P4 notice dated 10.03.1998 was issued to the accused and that the complaint filed on the basis of a