Whether the complaint petitions under sec.138 of N.I.Act filed by the Power of Attorney Holder was not maintainable and relying thereupon or on the basis thereof the learned Magistrate could not have issued summons as nothing on the record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company.- Complaint is not maintainable.= 2015 S.C. MSK LAWREPORTS

The complaint was not signed either by  Managing
Director or Director of the Company.  
It is also not in  dispute  that  PW-1
is only the employee of the Company.  
As per Resolution of the Company  i.e.
Ex.P3 under first part Managing Director  and  Director  are  authorized  to
file suits and criminal complaints  against  the  debtors  for  recovery  of
money and for prosecution. 
Under third part  of  the  said  Resolution  they
were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear  on  their
behalf in the Court and engage  lawyer  etc.   But  nothing  on  the  record
suggest that an employee is empowered to file the  complaint  on  behalf  of
the Company.  
This apart, Managing  Director  and  Director  are  authorized
persons of the Company to file  the  complaint  by  signing  and  by  giving
At best the said persons can  nominate  any  person  to  represent
themselves or the Company before the Court.  
In the present  case  one  Shri
Shankar Prasad employee of the Company signed the complaint and  the  Deputy
General Manager of the Company i.e.  PW-1  gave  evidence  as  if  he  knows
everything though he does not  know  anything.   
There  is  nothing  on  the
record to suggest that he was authorized by the  Managing  Director  or  any
Therefore,  Magistrate  by  judgment  dated  30th  October,  2001
rightly acquitted the appellant.  
In such  a  situation,  the  case  of  the
appellant is fully covered by decision by the larger  bench  of  this  Court
passed in the present appeal.  
We have no other option but to set aside  the
impugned judgment dated 19th September, 2007 passed by  the  High  Court  of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.578  of  2002.
The judgment and order dated 30th October,  2001  passed  by  the  Court  of
XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.18 of 2000 is upheld.
The appeals are allowed accordingly. - 2015 S.C. MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS