Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2722 (PNJ)

Aruna Madan v. Jagdeep Singh

2010-09-21

K.C.PURI

body2010
JUDGMENT K.C. PURI, J. Vide this order I intend to dispose of the Criminal Misc. No.M.26352 of 2008 and Criminal Misc.No.M.26353 of 2008 filed under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since common question of law and facts are involved between the same parties, so both the petitions are disposed of with the common order. For convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Misc. No.M.26352 of 2008. Jagdeep Singh, Director, Poshak Feeds (I) (P) Limited, through his special power of attorney Anant Ram filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act against Aruna Madan wife of Shri Hakikat Madan, proprietor Madan Feed Store with the allegations that complainant Jagdeep Singh is Director of Poshak Feeds (I) (P) Limited, and is filing complaint through special power of attorney who has been duly authorized to file and prove the present complaint. The accused had dealing with the complainant from time to time and in order to discharge his legal liability, accused issued a cheque No.609414 dated 1.8.2007 of Rs.50,000/-payable to the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his banker J & K Bank Branch at Karnal on 2.8.2007 but the said cheque was refused with the endorsement insufficient funds. The complainant informed the accused through a registered notice dated 11.8.2007 and in spite of that amount was not paid. Hence the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complaint has not been filed by a competent person. The cheque was issued in the name of the company but the complaint has been filed by one of the Directors, who has not been authorized for that purpose. So, the complaint is not maintainable. To fortify his argument, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority Swastik Coaters vs. Deepak Brothers 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 89 (A.P.). I have gone through the said authority carefully. The said authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. That was a case of appeal against acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So, the rights of the parties have been decided in that case whether the complaint has been filed by a competent person or not. The said authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. That was a case of appeal against acquittal in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So, the rights of the parties have been decided in that case whether the complaint has been filed by a competent person or not. In authority Sarathi Leasing Finance Ltd. vs. B. Narayana Shetty 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 827, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that conviction cannot be set aside solely on the ground that complaint of the company has not produced the proper authorization. The question of authorization to complainant arising taking up specific plea that the company did not prosecute him for offences. In authority M/s M.M.T.C. Ltd. vs. M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 318, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that company is de jure complainant. It must associate a human being as defacto complainant. Anybody can represent the company and he can change at any stage of the complaint. So, at this stage, it cannot be said that complaint has not been filed by any competent person. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points during the course of trial. In view of the above discussion, both the petitions are without any merit and the same stand dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.