1998 (3) TMI 617 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the unsigned complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Authority of the person filing the complaint.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Prejudice to the accused due to procedural irregularities.
5. Applicability of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the unsigned complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The primary issue was whether the complaint under Section 138, which was not signed by the complainant or an authorized person, was valid. The court noted that Section 142 of the Act requires a complaint to be in writing but does not explicitly mandate that it must be signed. The court emphasized that the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not include a requirement for the complainant's signature. Therefore, the absence of a signature on the complaint does not invalidate it, provided it is in writing and the magistrate can take cognizance based on the written complaint and accompanying evidence.

2. Authority of the person filing the complaint:
The court examined whether Shri Ashok Goel, who filed the complaint on behalf of Modella Knitwear Ltd., was duly authorized. The resolution dated April 12, 1996, authorized Shri Ashok Goel to file the complaint. The court found no issue with his authority, as he was present in court and his statement was recorded as preliminary evidence. The court distinguished this from cases where the complainant lacked authority, noting that in the present case, the authority of Shri Ashok Goel was undisputed.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court acknowledged that Sections 138 to 142 provide a specific procedure and timeframe for filing complaints related to cheque dishonor. However, it held that the omission to sign the complaint was a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect. The court referenced Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that no order shall be reversed due to any error, omission, or irregularity unless it has caused a failure of justice. The court concluded that the procedural requirements were substantially met, and the omission of the signature did not warrant dismissal of the complaint.

4. Prejudice to the accused due to procedural irregularities:
The court considered whether the accused suffered any prejudice due to the unsigned complaint. It noted that the accused had been contesting the case since its inception and had not raised the issue of the unsigned complaint at earlier stages. The court found that no prejudice was caused to the accused, as the complaint was presented in writing, and the authorized representative's statement was recorded. The court emphasized that procedural defects that do not cause prejudice to the accused do not vitiate the trial.

5. Applicability of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court applied Section 465 of the Code, which provides that no finding, sentence, or order shall be reversed due to any error, omission, or irregularity in the complaint unless it has caused a failure of justice. The court found that the omission of the signature was a curable irregularity and did not cause any failure of justice. Therefore, the complaint was valid, and the proceedings could continue.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the unsigned complaint was a procedural irregularity that did not invalidate the complaint or the proceedings. The authorized representative's presence and statement in court, along with the written complaint, met the requirements of Section 142. The court allowed the complainant to sign the complaint subsequently, emphasizing that no prejudice was caused to the accused and that the procedural defect was curable under the law.