Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Prince Marine Transport Services Private Limited, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Mr. Boppana G. Choudhary, for dishonour of a cheque. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to prove that its representative, Mr. Hashim Abdul Razak, was authorized to file the complaint and give evidence. The trial court, however, found that the liability of the accused was proved and the demand notice was duly served. The complainant appealed against the acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court erred in discarding the evidence of authorization. The power of attorney and board resolution were on record, and the representative had personal knowledge of the transaction. The court observed that authorization can be inferred from conduct and documents, and strict proof is not required. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentencing him to pay the cheque amount as compensation and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Authorization to File Complaint - Section 142 - Authorization can be inferred from conduct and documents - The trial court erred in holding that the complainant failed to prove authorization of its representative, as the power of attorney and board resolution were on record and the representative had personal knowledge of the transaction. Held that strict proof of authorization is not required if the representative is otherwise competent to depose. (Paras 9-17) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Liability and Notice - Sections 138, 139 - Liability proved and notice served - The trial court found that the liability of the accused was proved and the demand notice was duly served, which findings were not challenged by the accused. (Paras 21-34) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 - Interference with findings - The appellate court can reappreciate evidence and interfere if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complainant company proved that its representative was authorized to give evidence before the court, and whether the trial court erred in discarding oral and documentary evidence on authorization.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside. The respondent-accused is convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused is sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (the cheque amount) to the complainant within three months, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Law Points
- Authorization to file complaint under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 can be inferred from conduct and documents
- Board resolution not mandatory if authorization is otherwise proved
- Complainant company can be represented by authorized representative
- Evidence of authorization can be oral and documentary
