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
evidence. 
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
Director.  
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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports