SAMARTH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. Vs. GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for petitioner - complainant. Notice to respondent No.2 only at admission stage. The Writ Petition is heard finally at admission stage. In the trial Court, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, application Exhibit 18 was filed for discharge, which came to be rejected. Subsequently, the accused filed yet another application Exhibit 47 for discharge, in which detailed orders were passed, discarding the grounds raised by the accused for discharge. Another application filed by the accused for taking action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) also came to be rejected. Judgment was in favour of the complainant as far as regards the grounds which had been raised by the accused in the trial Court. However, in the revision, the revisional Court expanded the jurisdiction of revision so as to consider additional point and while considering those points, the revisional Court has dismissed the complaint. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner -complainant that, scope of revision was limited and the revisional Court could consider only grounds on which the matte was disputed in the trial Court and not further.

(2.) I have gone through the order concerned of the revisional Court. Para 6 of the order shows that, at the stage of revision, additional grounds were raised and considering those grounds also, the revision was heard. The revisional Court considered the complaint. Argument was raised before the revisional Court that the complaint should have been filed in the name of Company and Bajirao Tukaram Pawse could have represented the Company. However, the complaint has been filed in the name of Bajirao Tukaram Pawse. In para 16, revisional Court observed that, "It is, therefore, amply clear that in the instant case the complaint is filed by Bajirao Pawse, projecting himself as complainant. Merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the Company, he has no right to file the complaint projecting himself as a complainant". It was observed that, the complaint has to be filed by the payee and not by the alleged authority holder. Revisional Court found that, the complaint is not filed by the payee as required by the Act and as such, the same is not maintainable. Another point considered was that, the complaint is not maintainable as the Company Vaishnavi Sugar (India) Limited, is drawer of the cheque and the said Company has not been made accused in the complaint. The Sessions Court relied on the case of Aneeta Heda Vs. GodfatherTravels & Tours, reported in 2012 (5) SCC 661 and observed that it was necessary for the complainant to make Vaishnavi Sugar (India) Limited, which is a company as per Negotiable Instruments Act, as an accused in this case and then only Govindprasad Chaudhary can be made as an accused under Section 141 of the Act.

(3.) IN the matter of Pratap Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1973 SC 786, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with revisional powers of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as was then applicable to the case concerned), and it was observed as under: