Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Canara Workshops Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Mantesh, a dealer in automobile spare parts. The respondent had purchased goods on credit and issued a cheque for Rs.65,294/- towards the balance amount, which was dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the complaint was not filed by an authorised person. The High Court of Karnataka, in this appeal, examined the issue of authorisation. The court found that the complainant was represented by its branch in-charge and power of attorney holder, Shri Maxim Miranda, who was competent to file the complaint. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on this ground without considering the merits. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal, and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the parties to appear on 28.10.2013.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Authorisation to File Complaint - The trial court erred in holding that the complaint was not filed by an authorised person, as the power of attorney holder was competent to represent the company. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh consideration on merits. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed and prosecuted by a person competent to represent the complainant-company.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.2008 passed by the JMFC II Court, Hubli in C.C.No.2017/2006, and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 28.10.2013.
Law Points
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Authorisation to file complaint
- Power of attorney holder
- Competence of complainant
- Remand for fresh consideration
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (09) 26
Criminal Appeal No.2653/2008
Shri.Dinesh M Kulkari, & R.B.Naik, Advocates for appellant; Shri.Anant P Savadi, Advocate for respondent
M/s Canara Workshops Limited, Mangalore, through their branch Office in New Cotton Market Hubli, Represented by its branch in-charge And Power of Attorney holder Shri Maxim Miranda
Shri Mantesh, Prop: M/s Mantesh Automobiles, Bijapur Road, Athani, Belgaum District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-complainant sought to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the JMFC II Court, Hubli in C.C.No.2017/2006 and to convict the respondent-accused.
Filing Reason
The respondent issued a cheque for Rs.65,294/- towards balance payment for goods purchased on credit, which was dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the complaint was not filed by an authorised person.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC II Court, Hubli in C.C.No.2017/2006 acquitted the respondent, holding that the complaint was not filed by a person competent to represent the complainant-company.
Issues
Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed and prosecuted by a person competent to represent the complainant-company.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the complaint was filed by its branch in-charge and power of attorney holder, who was competent to represent the company.
The respondent raised objections that the complaint was not brought by an authorised person and also contested the validity of the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by a power of attorney holder of the complainant-company is maintainable, and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of authorisation without considering the merits of the case.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed by the complainant, who had alleged an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881... against the respondent.
The court below... has considered the point whether the complaint was filed and prosecuted by a person competent to represent the complainant - company and has answered the same in the negative...
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.2008 passed by the JMFC II Court, Hubli in C.C.No.2017/2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The appellant-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.2017/2006 before the JMFC II Court, Hubli. The trial court acquitted the respondent on 30.6.2008, holding that the complaint was not filed by an authorised person. The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal No.2653/2008 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was heard on 19.9.2013 and judgment pronounced on 27.9.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378
- Companies Act, 1956:
