9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether a criminal court can take cognizance of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when filed by a power of attorney holder of the complainant. Analysis: 1. The judgment involved a reference of eight cases to the High Court regarding the issue of whether a criminal court can consider a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when filed by a power of attorney holder. The court noted the previous judgment in Smt. Payyati Savitri Devi v. Malireddy Damayanthamma, which allowed a complaint to be filed by a general power of attorney holder. This reference was made due to doubts raised about the validity of this view. 2. Upon hearing arguments and examining the complaint, the court observed that the complaint in question was purportedly made by the payee but was signed by the power of attorney holder. The court emphasized that under section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint must be made in writing by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. The court clarified that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply in such cases. 3. The court highlighted that section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes its application when special laws like the Negotiable Instruments Act provide specific procedures. The court emphasized that for a criminal court to have jurisdiction, the complaint must fulfill two conditions: it should be in writing and made by the payee or holder in due course. In the cases under consideration, the complaint was made in the name of the complainant but not signed by the payee, as required by law. 4. The court rejected the reliance on judgments from other High Courts, emphasizing that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to the cognizance process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court disagreed with the views expressed in those judgments due to the specific provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act governing the filing of complaints. 5. The court concluded that a complaint under section 138 can only be filed by the payee or the holder in due course, with the determination of the holder being a factual question that must be pleaded. In the cases at hand, the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee, which was deemed impermissible under section 142 of the Act. The court disagreed with previous judgments that allowed such filings. 6. Ultimately, the court held that a power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint on behalf of the payee under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It declared that the law established in the previous judgment was not valid, and the matters were referred back to the Single Judge for further proceedings.
|
