The complaint can be initiated by an employee of the company authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors, and insufficient court fees should not lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - All the Criminal Revision Applications were heard on 21.10.2020.

2. Further hearing is taken up today through video conferencing.

3. In this batch of criminal revisions, the petitioners have prayed to quash the orders of taking cognizance and issuance of processes against the petitioners passed on dated 22.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 28.12.2012, 27.02.2013, 25.02.2013, 13.02.2013, 21.02.2013, 06.03.2013, 26.02.2012, 21.02.2013, 13.03.2013, 26.07.2013, 30.01.2013, 24.04.2013 and 20.07.2013 in 1.C.C. No.579/2012, 1.C.C No.677/2012, 1.C.C. No.542/2012, 1.C. C. No.581/2012, 1.C.C. No.657/2012, 1.C.C. No.544/2012, 1.C.C. No.656/2012, 1.C.C. No.543/2012, 1.C.C. No.530/2012, 1.C.C. No.615/2012, 1.C.C. No.580/2012, 1.C.C. No.614/2012, 1.C.C. No.3/2013, 1.C.C. No.529/2012, 1.C.C.31/2013 and 1.C.C.48/2013, respectively, by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh.

4. The facts of the cases are not disputed. The complainant-opposite party is a supplier of the petitioner-company. It is alleged that he supplied coal to the petitioner-company for valuable consideration. The accused-petitioners issued several cheques amounting to almost 10 crore rupees. All the cheques were presented before the Uco Bank, Rourkela but the cheques were not honoured, which led to issuance of notices as envisaged under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After service of such notices, there being no payment by the accused, the complaints were lodged before the learned SDJM, Panposh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in all these cases. Such orders of taking cognizance and issuance of processes have been assailed in all these criminal revision applications.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases may be summarized as follows:

It is submitted that in the complaint petition, no where it is mentioned that the Deputy In-charge or the Senior Clerk has been authorized to file the complaint case on behalf of opposite partyM/s. Agarwal Fuel Corporation (P) Ltd.-company about the transaction in question.

It is also submitted that in case a petition is filed by the company, the same can be done through its Director or Principal Officer by a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company in exercise of its statutory power under Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1961. However, in the present cases, opposite parties i.e. the Deputy In-charge, Principal Officer or Senior Clerk of the Company has no statutory power under Section 291 of the aforesaid Act nor they have been authorized by the Board of Directors of the Company to file a complaint case against the petitioners. It is further submitted that Section 142 of the N.I. Act, 1881 contains a non-obstante clause prohibiting the court to take cognizance of offence in case of complaint under Section 138 of the said Act, if the complaint petition is not filed by the payee or the holder of the cheque. It is further stated that Section 2(10) read with Section 3 of the Companies Act defines a company formed and registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner-company has been registered as "Sree Metaliks Ltd." whereas the case has been filed against "Shree Metaliks Ltd." and hence it is not maintainable.

In support of his contention, as reflected in the preceding paragraphs, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgments passed in the following cases.

The cases of Padmabati Naik vs. State of Orissa and others, (2013) 2 OrissaLR 316, Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. vs. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & others, (2011) 1 ILR(CUT) 833, Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra vs. Shri Ajitsinh Ulhasrao Babar, (2014) 1 OrissaLR 211, State Bank of Travancore vs. M/s Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd., (2011) AIRSCW 1948, A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and another with G. Kamalakar vs. M/s Surana Securities Ltd. and another, (2014) AIR SC 630, A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and another with