9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to authority of complainant to file complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Analysis: The judgment deals with petitions seeking the quashing of proceedings in criminal cases where the petitioners are facing charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main contention raised was regarding the authority of the complainant, Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, to file the complaint on behalf of the company. It was argued that the complainant lacked proper authorization from the company to initiate the criminal proceedings. The complaints were filed on behalf of a bank by Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, described as an Assistant Manager, Collections. The complainant was a multinational bank with its principal office in London and a service center in Secunderabad. The complainant relied on a power of attorney as the source of authority for filing the complaints. The crux of the issue was whether Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy had the proper authority to file the complaints on behalf of the bank. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence to show that Mr. Reddy was authorized by the company to initiate criminal proceedings. The power of attorney submitted did not establish Mr. Reddy's authorization adequately. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper authorization when a person files a complaint on behalf of a company. Lack of proper authority could have significant consequences, including the company refusing to comply with court directions or facing liability for malicious prosecution. The authority to institute criminal proceedings should typically come from the company's Board of Directors or relevant governing documents. The court emphasized that under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the payee or holder in due course of the cheque can file a complaint for an offense under Section 138. In this case, the bank was the payee, and therefore, only the bank could initiate criminal proceedings. The court referred to a previous decision to support the requirement for the complainant to be an authorized representative of the company. Based on the lack of evidence showing Mr. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy's proper authorization to file the complaints, the court held that the complaints were not maintainable. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the necessity of proper authorization for individuals representing companies in criminal proceedings, emphasizing the legal requirements for initiating complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
|
