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
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, could be presented by the President of a society without specific authorisation or power of attorney; (ii) Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was justified on the ground of want of maintainability.
Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be presented by the President of a society without specific authorisation or power of attorney.
Analysis: Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 restricts cognizance of an offence under Section 138 to a complaint in writing made by the payee or the holder in due course. Where the complainant is a society, company, or firm, the complaint may be instituted through an authorised person, but the authority must be shown by proper authorisation or power of attorney. In the absence of any document proving that the President was empowered to institute the complaint, the complaint could not be treated as duly presented in law.
Conclusion: The complaint, having been filed without proved authorisation, was not maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was justified on the ground of want of maintainability.
Analysis: The Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding that the complaint had been instituted by the President without authority. The appellate record disclosed no material curing that defect. Since the statutory requirement under Section 142 was not satisfied, the Trial Court's view on maintainability was sustained.
Conclusion: The acquittal was justified and did not call for interference.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order of acquittal was affirmed because the complaint was not properly instituted in accordance with the statutory requirements governing prosecutions for cheque dishonour.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be instituted by the payee or holder in due course, or by a person whose authority to act for them is duly proved by authorisation or power of attorney.
TaxTMI 
