TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by a company through its Law Officer was maintainable in the absence of a Board resolution and valid authorization. (ii) Whether issuance of process was vitiated for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the accused were residing beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by a company through its Law Officer was maintainable in the absence of a Board resolution and valid authorization.
Analysis: The complaint was presented and verified by the Law Officer, but no Board resolution or power of attorney authorizing him to institute and prosecute the complaint was produced before the Magistrate. The Vakalatnama was filed by a Director who was not the person prosecuting the case. In a company matter, authority to represent the company in litigation must flow from the Board of Directors under the Companies Act, and the record did not show such valid authorization. The complaint was therefore treated as not properly instituted by an authorized person.
Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.
Issue (ii): Whether issuance of process was vitiated for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the accused were residing beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: Section 202, as amended, made inquiry mandatory before issuing process when the accused resides outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The record showed that the complaint was never posted for such inquiry. Since the statutory mandate was not followed, the order taking cognizance and issuing process stood vitiated.
Conclusion: The failure to conduct the mandatory inquiry invalidated the order issuing process, and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding in the complaint case was quashed because the complaint was not properly authorized and the mandatory pre-process inquiry was not conducted.
Ratio Decidendi: A company complaint must be instituted through duly authorized Board action, and where the accused resides beyond jurisdiction, Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a mandatory inquiry before process is issued.
TaxTMI 
