2007 (10) TMI 711 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order of acquittal u/s 138 of the NI Act by the Trial Court.

Issue (a):
Whether a complaint for an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act can be presented by a person other than payee or holder in due course and their authorised agents, power of attorney holder?
Answer:
In the negative in view of Section 142 of the NI Act.

Issue (b):
Whether a complaint for an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act filed by a Firm, Society, Company by President, Secretary, Director, Employee without authorisation or power of attorney is maintainable?
Answer:
Specific authorisation authorising the complainant or a power of attorney authorising to file complaint required.

Issue (c):
Can a complaint be presented and prosecuted by a person other than the payee or holder in due course?
Answer:
Yes, only in specific circumstances as outlined.

Issue (d):
Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondent - accused for the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act.?
Answer:
In the affirmative for the reasons stated.

Upon re-evaluation of the evidence, it was established that the respondent had issued a cheque which was returned due to insufficient funds. A statutory notice was sent to the respondent, and the Trial Court took cognizance based on the material presented. However, the complaint was found to lack proper authorization or power of attorney, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The appellant's reliance on previous judgments was deemed inapplicable due to the specific provisions of the NI Act. The Court held that without proper authorization, the complaint was not maintainable, upholding the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused.