9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The complaint has been filed by the complainant in his name, and though he has given his description as the 'Managing Director of M/s. Bell Marshall Tele System Limited', it is difficult to spell out from the complaint, that the same had been filed by the said Company. From the demand notice that the same has been made on behalf of the Company M/s. Bell Marshall Tele System Limited. When the Company was aware of this position, that being payee, the Company itself was required to file the complaint, why the complaint was not filed in the name of the Company, is not clear. It is difficult to hold that this is simply an oversight or a mistake, and the possibility that the complainant wanted to keep this aspect of the matter rather vague, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, found respondent no.1 not guilty and passed an order of acquittal. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has, after obtaining special leave of this court, filed the present appeal praying that the order of acquittal be set aside and respondent no.1 be convicted. 2. I have heard Mrs. Kavita Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr. Amar Bhatt, the learned counsel for respondent no.1. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' and respondent no.1 as 'the accused.' 4. The accused had issued eight cheques in favour of M/s. Bell Marshall Tele System Limited. These cheques, though were drawn on differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficult to spell out from the complaint, that the same had been filed by the said Company. 7. In the introductory part of the complaint also, the complainant has described himself as the complainant, and has not described the Company as the complainant. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, the complainant has kept vague, as to in whose favour the cheques were issued by the accused. The relevant part of the first paragraph of the complaint reads as under : 1. I say that in due consideration and against legal enforceable liability of the sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) accused have issued eight cheques as under :- Sr. Cheque Date Amount in Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant, being its Managing Director or an authorised representative, was filing the same on behalf of the Company. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant's case may not be thrown out on such technicality, and therefore, I have examined the record of the case. I find from the demand notice that the same has been made on behalf of the Company M/s. Bell Marshall Tele System Limited. When the Company was aware of this position, that being payee, the Company itself was required to file the complaint, why the complaint was not filed in the name of the Company, is not clear. 9. It is difficult to hold that this is simply an oversight or a mistake, and the possibility that the complainant wanted to ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
