Company cheque-dishonour complaints by a public servant representative can qualify for the section 200 examination exemption.

A cheque-dishonour complaint filed in a company's name may fall within the proviso to section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it is presented through an employee who is a public servant acting in discharge of official duties. The company remains the de jure complainant, while the representative acts as the de facto complainant for prosecution purposes. On that construction, the statutory exemption from pre-summoning examination applies, and the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing process.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a complaint for dishonour of cheque filed in the name of a company, the complaint can be treated as one made by a public servant so as to attract the exemption from examination of the complainant and witnesses under the proviso to section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the complaint to be made by the payee, and where the payee is a company the complaint must be in the company's name. Section 200 of the Code ordinarily requires examination on oath of the complainant, but the proviso exempts complaints made by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties. A company, being an incorporeal body, cannot physically be examined, so a natural person must represent it in criminal proceedings. The company remains the de jure complainant, while the employee or representative who signs and presents the complaint is the de facto complainant. If that representative is a public servant and is acting for the company in discharge of official duties, the statutory exemption applies. This construction avoids an artificial distinction between a complaint filed in the name of the company through its public servant representative and a complaint filed directly in the representative's name.

Conclusion: The exemption under the proviso to section 200 of the Code applies where a company's complaint is presented by its employee who is a public servant and who acts in the discharge of official duties. The Magistrate was therefore not required to examine the complainant and witnesses before issuing process.

---