Cheque bounce complaint maintainability upheld despite witness-list omission, manager filing, post-dated cheques, and memo-date discrepancy.

Absence of a list of prosecution witnesses with a complaint under section 204(2) CrPC was treated as a non-mandatory defect in this context and was not enough to quash the proceedings at the threshold. A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by a manager on behalf of a company was stated to be maintainable where the manager was authorised to act for the company. Post-dated cheques were also held not to defeat the complaint, because section 138 could apply on the dates written on the instruments if they were presented within the permitted period. A discrepancy in the date of receipt of the bank memo was treated as an evidentiary issue for trial, not a ground for quashing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a list of prosecution witnesses with the complaint under section 204(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the proceedings at the threshold; (ii) whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the manager on behalf of a company was maintainable; (iii) whether the cheques being post-dated cheques affected the maintainability of the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and (iv) whether the discrepancy regarding the date of receipt of the bank memo warranted quashing of the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a list of prosecution witnesses with the complaint under section 204(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the proceedings at the threshold.

Analysis: The provision requiring filing of a witness list before issue of process was treated as not mandatory in this context. The omission to furnish the list was held insufficient by itself to justify quashing of the proceedings at the inception.

Conclusion: The objection failed and did not justify quashing of the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the manager on behalf of a company was maintainable.

Analysis: A company may act through an authorised officer or manager in legal proceedings, and a complaint presented in that manner is a complaint by the company itself. The object of the statute would be defeated by insisting on a narrower formality where authorization is present.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the cheques being post-dated cheques affected the maintainability of the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The relevant dates were the dates appearing on the cheques, and the cheques were presented within six months from those dates. Even if treated as post-dated cheques, the instrument assumed the character of a cheque on the date written on its face, and section 138 applied accordingly.

Conclusion: The post-dated nature of the cheques did not defeat the complaint.

Issue (iv): Whether the discrepancy regarding the date of receipt of the bank memo warranted quashing of the complaint.

Analysis: The discrepancy related to an evidentiary matter that required examination at trial and was not a ground for quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The objection could not be accepted at the quashing stage.

Final Conclusion: No ground urged by the petitioners justified interference with the criminal complaint, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---