- (1.) (Prayer: Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the High Court will be pleased to call for the Records in (1) C.C.Nos.4172 and 4171 of 1999 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai (in Crl.O.P.Nos.1548 and 15496 of 1999), (2) C.C.Nos.5137 and 5122 of 1998 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai (in Crl.O.P. Nos.13771 and 13772 of 1999) (3) in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai-15 (in Crl.O.P.No.13773 of 1999), etc.) 1. Crl.O.P.Nos.15488 and 15496 of 1999 are filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C.Nos.4172 of 1999 and 4171 of 1999 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore to quash the proceedings under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C.
(2.) CRL.O.P.Nos.13772 and 13773 of 1999 have been filed by the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 in C.C.Nos.5122 and 2546 of 1999 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, under Sec.482, CRL.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Crl.R.C.No.615 of 2000 has been filed under Sec.397, Crl.P.C. read with Sec.401, Crl.P.C. by the petitioners/ accused in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 aggrieved against orders dated 2.6.2000 wherein the substitution petition was allowed. For disposal of these applications, the case in brief is as follows: The respondents in the respective petitions have filed complaints under Secs.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against these revision Petitioners relating to dishonour of cheques. C.C. Nos.4171 and 4172 of 1999 were filed by the respondent- company represented by its Legal Assistant, Mr.G.Anbumani, C.C. Nos.2546 of 1999, 5122 and 5137 of 1998 have been filed by the respondent/ complainant, viz.,Agri Development Finance (Tamil Nadu) Limited represented by its Vice President M.K. Srinivasan. The complainant Company is the payee in all the cases. A competent person must legally represent the company and it must be brought in records. There are no applications in the company relating to authorisation or Board of Resolution to enable the person to file a complaint on behalf of the company. According to Sec.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sec.138 except upon a complaint in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. If the complaint is not preferred by a competent person, it cannot be construed as a proper complaint as per law and the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of such complaint. The company, being a fictitious person, can authorise a person legally by way of Resolution of the Board. Unless there is Board of Resolution with a deed of Power of Attorney, the Court cannot proceed on authorisation. Though power of Attorney has been mentioned in the list of documents, there is nothing specific in the statement of the company. The legal assistant can be considered as a person who was incharge of the affairs of the payee- company. He is not a Managing Director, authorised by way of resolution of the Board and his action may not be binding on the payee-company. In short, there are no clear averments in the complaint relating to the authorisation or power. Regarding the other three cases, it has been stated that the company is represented by its Vice President by name Mr.K.Srinivasan and an authorisation letter has also been produced. In the sworn statement, it was stated that Srinivasan was working as Vice President and he received an authorisation to lodge the complaint. Without the resolution of the Board and in the absence of the proof that the person is mentioned as Managing Director of the Company, he has no right to maintain the complaint and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance. No document has been produced to substantiate the same and no Board of Resolution has been produced before the Court. The alleged authorisation letter produced by Mr.K.Srinivasan is not an extract of the Board of Resolution. The date, number and any other particulars have not been furnished or disclosed. Under such circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the complainants and the respective complaints are illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is also basically wrong and under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. all these proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE criminal revision case has been filed by the accused alleging that the learned Magistrate has erred in allowing the application without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a counter. THE substitution petition was filed by the complainant and notice was given to the other side. However, the Court below has passed an order alleging that other side has no objection, which is patently wrong. THE counsel for the accused never made an endorsement and in fact, sought time only to file counter. THE Board of Resolution dated 19.4.2000 in favour of one Mr.V.Singaravelan, authorising him to pursue the complaint in the place of the Original Power of Attorney Agent, Mr.S.Madhu is only to fill up the lacunae. In short, on the strength of the Managing Director of the Company and in order to ratify the act of the Managing Director, on the strength of the Board Resolution dated 19.4.2001, substituting Mr.Singaravelan in the place of Mr.Madhu, the application has been filed. THE learned Magistrate, allowed the application for substitution and as the resolution goes to the root of the matter and virtually it ratifies the earlier act of the complainant, the company has no locus standi to execute the same and as such, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 2.6.2000 is liable to be set aside. 7.-A THE learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants in the respective petitions contended that authorisation letter has been filed in some cases and power of Attorney has been filed in some cases. So far as the substitution is concerned, notice was already given to the counsel for the petitioners and as they have stated no objection, the substitution petition was allowed. When evidently the documents in the nature of Power of Attorney or authorisation has been filed, the question whether they are valid and binding are matters that could be considered in the course of trial. THE contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted and the complaint cannot be thrown out on these grounds. THE grounds now raised by the petitioners are matters that have to be decided on the basis of evidence and opportunity has to be given to the respondents to establish the same. The petitioners are almost same in all the petitions and only the complainants are different. The disputes between the parties relate to the maintainability of the complaint and as the issues involved in all the cases are the same, a common Order is pronounced. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are described in the complaints to avoid the confusion. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the complaint filed by the respective complainants are maintainable under law. (2) Whether the complaints are liable to be quashed under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C.. (3) Whether the order of Substitution passed in favour of the complainant dated 2.6.2000 is proper and correct. ;