Complaint dismissed for lack of authorization; subsequent letter not retroactive. Appeal dismissed, lower court decision affirmed.

The Court determined that the complaint filed by M/s. Satish and Company was not validly instituted due to lack of authorization from the Manager at the time of filing. The subsequent authorization letter filed one year later did not retroactively validate the complaint. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to acquit the accused.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the complainant to file the complaint.
2. Authorization of the Manager to file the complaint.
3. Validity of subsequent ratification of the complaint.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Complainant to File the Complaint:
The primary issue was whether the complaint filed by M/s. Satish and Company, represented by its Manager, was competent as per the date of filing. The Court noted that the complaint was filed without any letter or resolution authorizing the Manager to act on behalf of the company. Section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act stipulates that a complaint must be made by the payee or holder in due course. Since M/s. Satish and Company was the payee, the complaint should have been filed by an authorized representative of the company. The Court concluded that the complaint was not validly instituted as on the date of filing since no authorization was presented.

2. Authorization of the Manager to File the Complaint:
The Court examined whether the Manager, Mr. Naresh Kumar, was duly authorized to file the complaint. The complaint was filed without any accompanying authorization letter, and Ex. P-1, a letter authorizing the Manager, was filed one year later. The Court emphasized that the Manager must be explicitly authorized to file such complaints, as the designation alone does not confer the authority to bind the company in legal proceedings. The Court referred to relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Civil Procedure Code, concluding that the Manager was not authorized to file the complaint at the time it was filed.

3. Validity of Subsequent Ratification of the Complaint:
The Court considered whether the subsequent filing of Ex. P-1 could ratify the complaint retroactively. The Court held that the complaint must be valid at the time of filing for the Court to take cognizance of the offence. Subsequent ratification cannot cure the defect of an initially incompetent complaint. The Court cited the principle that legal proceedings must be initiated by duly authorized persons to bind the company and prevent repudiation of legal consequences. The Court referenced the case "K. N. Sankaranarayanan v. Shree Consultations," which held that an invalid initiation cannot be validated by later ratification. The Court concluded that Ex. P-1, filed after one year, could not retroactively authorize the complaint, and filing a new complaint within the statutory period was necessary.

Conclusion:
The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the lower court's order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal of the accused. The Criminal Appeal was dismissed.

---