2009 (10) TMI 988 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to File Complaints
2. Validity of Authority Letters
3. Interpretation of "To Sue or Be Sued"

Summary:

1. Authority to File Complaints:
The appellant, a Multi State Co-operative Society, filed complaints through Shashikant R. Sawaikar and Pramod Kavlekar, whose authority was questioned by the accused. The main issue was whether these individuals had sufficient authority to file the complaints and/or depose on behalf of the complainant. The court referred to the decision in *Shankar Finance & Investments v. State of A.P. and Ors.*, which stated that the requirement of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is met if the complaint is in the name of the payee and in writing, and the representation of the payee is governed by general law.

2. Validity of Authority Letters:
The authority letters dated 25.8.2005 and 10.1.2008, issued by the Managing Directors of the complainant, were produced to support the authority of Sawaikar and Kavlekar. However, during cross-examination, it was revealed that there were no resolutions passed by the board of directors authorizing the Managing Directors to issue such letters. The trial court concluded that the complaints were not filed by properly authorized persons, leading to the dismissal of the complaints and acquittal of the accused.

3. Interpretation of "To Sue or Be Sued":
The appellant argued that the Managing Director had the power to appoint persons to sue or be sued on behalf of the society u/s 52 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. However, the court held that the expression "to sue or be sued" generally refers to civil actions and not criminal prosecutions. The court cited various judgments, including *Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani*, which interpreted "to sue" as the enforcement of a civil right by legal proceedings. The court concluded that the Managing Director did not have the authority to file criminal complaints and therefore could not delegate such authority.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed as the complainant failed to provide proper authority for the individuals who filed the complaints. The court upheld the trial court's decision that the complaints were not maintainable due to the lack of proper authorization.