9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the complaint filed by the appellant in his personal capacity. 2. Authorization of the appellant to file the complaint on behalf of the firm. 3. Applicability of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issue 1: Maintainability of the Complaint The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by a Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16.03.2006, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. The Magistrate held that the complaint filed by the appellant in his personal capacity cannot be treated as a complaint by M/s. Jiya Lal Sumair Chand Jain, the payee of the cheques in question. The Magistrate noted that the cheques were issued in favor of the firm and the legal notice was also issued on behalf of the firm. The eligibility criterion prescribed by Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that the complaint u/s 138 must be by the payee or the holder in due course of the said cheque. The complaint was required to be filed in the name of the firm, but the present case was filed by Shri Suresh Sharma in his personal capacity. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint as he has no cause of action in his favor to initiate the criminal proceedings against the accused. Issue 2: Authorization to File the ComplaintThe appellant argued that as per exhibit CW1/1, he was authorized to file the complaint on behalf of M/s. Jiya Lal Sumair Chand Jain. He contended that the court is empowered to take cognizance of a complaint preferred by a firm or a company u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even if filed by a manager. However, the respondents submitted that there is no evidence available to support the contention that the appellant filed the complaint as an authorized representative of the firm. No representative of the firm appeared in the witness box to ratify the filing of the complaint, and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was working as a Manager and was competent to file such a complaint. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe appellant relied on several judgments to support his case, including MMTC Ltd. v. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., Sudhir Engg. Co. v. Nitco Roadways, and others. However, the court distinguished these cases, noting that in the present case, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint after recording evidence and being unsatisfied with the appellant's authority to file the complaint. The court emphasized that u/s 142, the complaint must be by the payee or the holder in due course. The appellant, not being the payee of the dishonored cheques and the firm not coming forward to file the complaint, failed to prove the authority to file such a complaint. Conclusion:In light of the legal position, the appellant not being a payee in respect of the dishonored cheques and the firm not proving the authority of the manager to file the complaint, the order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16.03.2006 is fully justified. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
|
