1994 (1) TMI 298 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Requirement of a list of witnesses in the complaint.
3. Authority of a manager to represent a public company in legal proceedings.
4. Validity of post-dated cheques in relation to section 138 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint alleged dishonor of cheques issued towards outstanding liabilities. The accused raised objections regarding the complaint's validity, including the absence of a witness list, representation by a manager of a public company, and the nature of post-dated cheques.

2. The first objection raised was the absence of a list of witnesses in the complaint, as required by section 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court referred to a previous ruling stating that the provision is not mandatory for quashing proceedings. Therefore, this objection was dismissed.

3. The second objection questioned the authority of a manager to represent a public company in legal proceedings. The court cited a judgment supporting the manager's right to file a complaint on behalf of the company. It emphasized that the purpose of the Act should not be defeated, leading to the rejection of this objection.

4. The third objection focused on the nature of post-dated cheques mentioned in the complaint. The court clarified that the dates on the cheques are crucial, and presenting them within six months is essential, irrespective of being post-dated. Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, the court emphasized that the character of a cheque is determined by the date on it, dismissing this objection as well.

5. The fourth objection related to discrepancies in the date of receiving the bank's memo about dishonored cheques, deemed a matter for trial. Ultimately, the court rejected all objections raised by the accused's counsel, leading to the dismissal of the petition to quash the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.