Complainant's Appeals Dismissed for Lack of Competency; Power of Attorney Invalid without Proper Authorization

The Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the complainant, represented by a power of attorney holder, against the accused due to lack of competency. The complainant, a cooperative federation, failed to show explicit authorization for the power of attorney holder to sue on its behalf, as per organizational bye-laws. The Court upheld the trial judge's ruling that without proper authorization from the federation's Board of Directors, the power of attorney was invalid, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and affirming the lower court judgments.

---

---

Issues:
Competency of the complainant to file appeals against the accused.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two criminal appeals, Crl.A.No.348 of 2001 and Crl.A.No.410 of 2001, filed by the complainant, a power of attorney holder, against the judgments in C.C.No.1377 of 1995 and C.C.No.1375 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore. The complaints involved the purchase of cotton bales by the accused from the complainant, with subsequent issuance of cheques that were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite legal notices sent to the accused, the cheque amounts were not repaid. The complainant, represented by P.Ws and documentary evidence, sought redressal through legal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The accused denied involvement in the crimes during the trial.

The key issue in the appeals was the competency of the complainant, Devender Kumarlal, to file the appeals against the accused. The complainant, M/s Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., was represented by a power of attorney holder, who claimed authority through a General Power of Attorney executed by the Managing Director, Naresh Gulati. The respondent argued that as per the bye-laws of the complainant, only the Managing Director was authorized to "sue and be sued" on behalf of the Federation, and there was no provision allowing the Managing Director to delegate this power without Board authorization. The judgment emphasized that unless the Board of Directors explicitly authorized the Managing Director to delegate such powers, the Managing Director could not execute a power of attorney to another person.

The Court concurred with the trial judge's decision that the complaint filed by Devender Kumarlal, asserting power of attorney under Ex P11 from the Managing Director, was not maintainable under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the judgments in C.C.No.1377/1995 and C.C.No.1375/1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to organizational bye-laws and proper authorization for legal representation in such matters, underscoring the significance of explicit delegation of powers by the appropriate governing body.

---