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
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