Service of notice and corporate complaint authorisation under the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld, allowing proceedings to continue.

Service of statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as duly proved because the affidavits and supporting documents showed issuance and service on the accused directors and officers before the complaints were filed; the challenge of non-service therefore failed. A complaint filed in the name of a company and signed by its administrative manager did not require separate express authorisation, since a company acts through its officers and no special authority is needed where the company itself is the named complainant. The complaints were held maintainable and proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been served on the petitioners before institution of the complaints. (ii) Whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed in the name of a company and signed by its administrative manager required a separate express authorisation.

Issue (i): Whether statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been served on the petitioners before institution of the complaints.

Analysis: The affidavits and accompanying documents showed that notice was issued and served on the accused directors and officers before the complaints were filed. In the absence of a specific and effective challenge to those documents, service was treated as duly proved. The objection that the complaint could not proceed for want of notice therefore had no surviving basis.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-service of notice failed and was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed in the name of a company and signed by its administrative manager required a separate express authorisation.

Analysis: A company is a juristic person and can act only through human agency. Where the complaint is filed in the name of the company itself and signed by an officer connected with its affairs, such as a manager or administrative manager, no special authorisation is necessary merely because the complainant is a corporate body. The requirement of authorisation would arise where the complaint is instituted in the personal name of the signatory for and on behalf of the company, not where the company itself is the named complainant.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable without a separate express authorisation, and this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The complaints were held maintainable, the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was declined, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable when instituted in the name of a company and signed by an officer who represents its affairs, without any separate express authorisation, provided the complaint is not filed in the officer's personal name for the company.

---