ORDER

This petition is filed to set aside the order dated 27.01.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2020 in C.A.No.177 of 2019 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is a complainant herein who had given a complaint against the respondent for the offfence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring of cheque. The case has been taken on file in C.C.No.816 of 2017 before the Fast Track Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and after trial, the repondent was found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cheque. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.177 of 2019 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the same is pending. In the Criminal Appeal, the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2020 to recieve additional document and the same was dismissed on 27.01.2021. Aggrieved over the same, this Criminal Original Peition has been preferred.

3. The leaned counsel for the petititoner submitted that even though the trial court has convicted the respondent, during the appeal proceedings, he has taken a stand that the petitioner is not a competent person to maintain the complaint on behalf of the company. So, in view of abundant caution, the petitioner has filed a petition under section 391 of Cr.P.C., to recieve the additional documents viz., attendance and minutes of the meeting of the Directors of the company to show that the petitioner is the competent person to represent the company .

4. It is a curious case where the unsuccessful petitioner has filed a petition in criminal appeal to recieve the additional documents on the basis of the ground taken by the respondent. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated so many reasons for filing such petition under section 391 of Cr.P.C., no reason has been stated to show that any of the additional documents mentioned therein authorises the petitioner to file the complaint on behalf of his company. So far as the company matters are concerned, a person can represent a company only in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act and not otherwise. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has been given with Power of Attorney to represent the company and only in pursuance of the said Power of Attorney, the complaint has been filed. Since the Power of Attorney was marked as Ex.P.6, it is superfluous to file any more documents in this regard and it will only waste the time of the Court. However, it is for the appreication of the learned Appellate Judge to consider the argument made by the appellant and the respondent in connection with their locus standii to represent the company.

5. With these observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

22.11.2022 Index: yes/no Internet: yes/no msr To The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

R.N.MANULA, J.

msr Crl.M.P.No.4040 of 2021

22.11.2022