ORDER: Crl.O.P.Nos.15488 and 15496 of 1999 are filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C.Nos.4172 of 1999 and 4171 of 1999 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore to quash the proceedings under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C.

2. Crl.O.P.Nos.13772 and 13773 of 1999 have been filed by the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 in C.C.Nos.5122 and 2546 of 1999 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

3. Crl.R.C.No.615 of 2000 has been filed under Sec.397, Crl.P.C. read with Sec.401, Crl.P.C. by the petitioners/ accused in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 aggrieved against orders dated 2.6.2000 wherein the substitution petition was allowed.

For disposal of these applications, the case in brief is as follows:

4. The respondents in the respective petitions have filed complaints under Secs.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against these revision Petitioners relating to dishonour of cheques. C.C. Nos.4171 and 4172 of 1999 were filed by the respondent- company represented by its Legal Assistant, Mr.G.Anbumani, C.C. Nos.2546 of 1999, 5122 and 5137 of 1998 have been filed by the respondent/ complainant, viz., Agri Development Finance (Tamil Nadu) Limited represented by its Vice President M.K. Srinivasan.

5. The complainant Company is the payee in all the cases. A competent person must legally represent the company and it must be brought in records. There are no applications in the company relating to authorisation or Board of Resolution to enable the person to file a complaint on behalf of the company. According to Sec.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sec.138 except upon a complaint in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. If the complaint is not preferred by a competent person, it cannot be construed as a proper complaint as per law and the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of such complaint. The company, being a fictitious person, can authorise a person legally by way of Resolution of the Board. Unless there is Board of Resolution with a deed of Power of Attorney, the Court cannot proceed on authorisation. Though power of Attorney has been mentioned in the list of documents, there is nothing specific in the statement of the company. The legal assistant can be considered as a person who was incharge of the affairs of the payee- company. He is not a Managing Director, authorised by way of resolution of the Board and his action may not be binding on the payee-company. In short, there are no clear averments in the complaint relating to the authorisation or power.

6. Regarding the other three cases, it has been stated that the company is represented by its Vice President by name Mr.K.Srinivasan and an authorisation letter has also been produced. In the sworn statement, it was stated that Srinivasan was working as Vice President and he received an authorisation to lodge the complaint. Without the resolution of the Board and in the absence of the proof that the person is mentioned as Managing Director of the Company, he has no right to maintain the complaint and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance. No document has been produced to substantiate the same and no Board of Resolution has been produced before the Court. The alleged authorisation letter produced by Mr.K.Srinivasan is not an extract of the Board of Resolution. The date, number and any other particulars have not been furnished or disclosed. Under such circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the complainants and the respective complaints are illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is also basically wrong and under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. all these proceedings are liable to be quashed.

7. The criminal revision case has been filed by the accused alleging that the learned Magistrate has erred in allowing the application without giving an opportunity to the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document