The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper authorization for filing a complaint and the interpretation of the period of six months from the date of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.05.2002 acquitting the respondents herein who were prosecuted before the Court below for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in C.C.No.6662 of 1999, a case instituted on private complaint filed by the appellant herein.

2. The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in brief, is as follows:-

The appellant/complainant is carrying on the business of selling electrical goods and appliances in the name and style of "Hansa Traders"(a proprietary concern) at No.57,Parthasarathy Pettai Street, Teynampet, Chennai-86. The Second respondent/second accused, as a director of the first respondent/first accused company, purchased electrical fittings, fans and other electrical accessories on behalf of the first respondent/first accused company from the above said business concern of the appellant/complainant and issued a cheque dated 05.08.1998 bearing Cheque No.643003 for a sum of Rs.60,515/-drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruthani Branch towards the price of the goods purchased. The said cheque was presented for collection through Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Thousand Light Branch, Chennai(Appellants Banker) on 01.02.1999. But the same was returned unpaid by the drawee Bank(Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruthani Branch) on 05.02.1999 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, a statutory legal notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque was issued on 17.02.1999. The second respondent/second accused refused to receive the same. However, the first respondent/first accused received the said notice and sent a reply on 08.03.1999 containing false and untenable allegations. Since, the demand for payment of the amount covered by the cheque was not complied with within the statutory period after the receipt of notice, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act became complete and hence the complainant was constrained to prefer the complaint on the file of the Court below.

3. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allegedly committed by the respondents herein was taken cognizance of by the Court below and the said complaint was numbered as C.C.No.6662 of 1999. Mr.Hemant Bohra son of the complainant Mr.K.C.Bohra was examined and his statement was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before issuing process to the respondents/ accused. On appearance, the respondents/accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate conducted trial in which two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Ex-P1 to Ex-P8 on the side of the complainant. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents/accused.

4. Ultimately, after considering the evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the charges against the respondents herein/accused and acquitted them by impugned judgment dated 06.05.2002. The reasons assigned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for coming to the said conclusions are:-

i) The person who at the first instance gave the statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and later on deposed as P.W.1 on behalf of the complainant was not truly authorized by the complainant and hence the prosecution based on the private complaint is vitiated;

ii) The cheque in question was not presented for payment in the drawee bank within the period of its validity (within a period of six months from the date of its issue) in accordance with law and hence the complaint itself is misconceived and incompetent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of the Court below was not only erroneous, but also an example of total non-application of mind to the relevant provisions of law; that the Court below, while correctly holding that the complaint itself was signed and pr