TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and consequent sentence have been set aside. The revision petitioner/complainant prays for resorting the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Judge. 2. The revision petitioner is a company represented by its Managing Director. In the complaint filed on behalf of the said Company, it was alleged that one Vasanthkumar had borrowed a sum of ₹ 65,000/- from the revision petitioner and for repayment of the balance of the said amount with interest thereon he, (the respondent/ accused), as co-obligant, had issued a cheque for ₹ 65,200/-. The said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The complainant/company claimed that despite service of notice of dishonour of cheque, the respondent having f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at he had kept certain signed blank cheques in his office and that one of such cheques, might have been taken by Vasathkumar. In effect his contention was that the said Vasanthkumar has stolen the cheque and had given it to the complainant. It was also contended by him in his evidence before the appellate Court that when he asked Vasanthkumar about cheque leaves, the latter told that nothing would happen. Rejecting his contention, the Learned Sessions Judge, held that the cheque had been issued for discharge of the loan. 5. There was another contention taken by the respondent. It was that there was no proper authorization by the company empowering the Managing Director to file the complaint and to conduct the case. That contention was up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Company had been represented by the Managing Director of the Company, the question of authorization did not arise. It is further submitted by him that even otherwise also this contention that there was no proper authorization to file the complaint had not been taken during trial and before conviction and not even in the appeal memo, but that it was taken only later and that therefore the Learned Appellate Judge ought not to have taken into consideration that belated plea of the respondent. 8. Replying to this, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the observations of the High Court in Dr. Uma Gangadhar's case apply to the present case also and that since it is a question of law, it could have been raised at the belated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, and Section 420 of the IPC. It was held as under: On a combined reading of Sections 4(2) and 190 CrPC it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance under Section 190 and no Court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint. But where any special statute prescribes offences and makes any special provision for taking cognizance of such offences under the statute, the complainant requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence must satisfy the elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court further held that the cheques were issued as security and not for any debt or liability existing on the date of issuance. Opposing the appeals, the respondent contended inter alia, that the cheque having bounced on account of stoppage of payment by the drawer and not on account of insufficiency of funds, Section 138 was not attracted. Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court. Held: The only eligibility criterion prescribed by Section 142 for maintaining a complaint under Section 138 is that the complaint must be by the payee or the holder in due course. This criterion is satisfied as the complaint is in the name and on behalf of the appellant Company. Therefore, even presuming, that initially there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany does not arise at all. In that view of the matter, the Learned Sessions Judge was wholly in error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction solely on the ground that the revision petitioner had not produced the proper authorization. 15. The next question that arises is whether the matter has to be remanded or it can be disposed of in this revision petition. The Appellate Court has considered the matter on merits. It has not accepted the contention of the respondent-accused that the blank signed cheques had been stolen by Vasantha Kumar and such stolen cheques could have been given to the complainant/revision petitioner. 16. The Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence discloses this possibility. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
