IMPORTANT POINT
A complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act requires proper authorization from the complainant, and failure to establish this authority results in dismissal of the case.

JUDGMENT :

(Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) :

The above-mentioned appeals have been preferred by the appellant-complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.07.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 1999 and No.21 of 1999 setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in Complaint Case No.125/2//1997 and No.124/2/1997, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act), respectively.

2. This common order of mine shall dispose of both of the abovementioned appeals since they arise out of same factual background with only difference being the cheque amount, the details of which are as follows: -

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case are being extracted from CRA-S-440-SBA-2002 titled as The Kerala State Cooperative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. S.L. Jain.

4. Succinctly, the facts are that appellant-complainant being a Government undertaking, filed the complaints (supra) through its Branch Manager namely Sh. A.N. Pillai against the respondent Sh. S.L. Jain being the HUF/Karta/Partner of M/s Mahavir Rubber Industries, Jalandhar. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondent-accused purchased raw rubber bundles from the complainant in lieu of which, he issued two cheques with details mentioned above, both drawn on Bank of India, Industrial Area Branch, Jalandhar. When the cheques in question were presented to the bank for encashment, the same were returned vide memo dated 24.12.1994 with remarks ‘Exceed Arrangement’. Thereupon, a demand notice dated 24.12.1994 was sent to thee respondent under registered post, asking him to pay the said cheque amounts but the same was returned undelivered with remarks ‘out of station for unknown period’. Thereafter, the appellant filed the complaints (supra) against the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act, before the learned trial Coourt, wherein, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period off 9 months along with a fine of Rs.300/- and a further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Aggrieved by his conviction, the respondent preferred an appeal against the same before thee learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was allowed and his conviction and sentence was set aside. Discontented by the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower Appellate Court, the complainant has approached this Court by way of the present appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that that the respondent categorically admitted his signatures on the cheques in question and issuance of the said cheques when he stepped into the witness box as his own witness as DW11. It was also admitted by him that he was present at the address where the demand notice was served on that very day. Learned counsel for the appellant vociferously contends that Sh. A.N. Pilai had the locus standi to file the criminal complaints being the Branch Manager of the complainant-federation. Further, a power of attorney dated 28.06.1995 was executed by the Managing Director of the said federation in favour of the Branch Manager which was duly proved on record as Ex. P-5. He further places reliance on the cases Rakesh vs. The Sonipat District Primary Co-operative Agricultural, 2024(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 482 and Popular Motor Corporation vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2023(4) Cri. CC 47 in order to render support to his arguments.

6. Learned State counsel submits a detailed status report in way of an affidavit of