Cheque-dishonour complaints by an authorised company representative and curable court-fee defect, but territorial jurisdiction lay elsewhere.

In cheque-dishonour prosecutions by a company, a complaint need not be filed only by a director or principal officer; it may be instituted through an authorised employee or other competent representative if the authority can be traced to a board resolution or similar mandate, so the complaints were not quashed for want of proper authorisation. Alleged insufficiency of court fee also did not justify outright rejection at the threshold, because a fee deficit is curable and an opportunity to make good the deficiency must be given. On territorial jurisdiction, the Panposh court was not the proper forum, so the complaints were to be withdrawn and presented before the competent Magistrate at Barbil.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were maintainable when filed by an employee authorised by the company and not by a director or principal officer; (ii) whether insufficiency of court fee could justify rejection of the complaints at the threshold; and (iii) whether the learned Magistrate at Panposh had territorial jurisdiction, and what effect the jurisdictional defect had on the pending complaints.

Issue (i): whether the complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were maintainable when filed by an employee authorised by the company and not by a director or principal officer.

Analysis: A complaint by a company need not be presented only by a director or principal officer. A company may act through an authorised employee or other person competent to depose to the facts, if the complaint is in the name of the payee company and the authorisation is traceable to a board resolution or similar authority. A defect in initial authorisation is not fatal where the company subsequently supports the complaint and the authority can be proved at trial if disputed.

Conclusion: The complaints were not liable to be quashed on the ground of want of proper authorisation.

Issue (ii): whether insufficiency of court fee could justify rejection of the complaints at the threshold.

Analysis: Court-fee requirements are fiscal in nature and do not extinguish the underlying cause of action. A proceeding should not be dismissed outright for deficit court fee without affording an opportunity to make good the deficiency.

Conclusion: The complaints could not be rejected merely for alleged insufficiency of court fee.

Issue (iii): whether the learned Magistrate at Panposh had territorial jurisdiction, and what effect the jurisdictional defect had on the pending complaints.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction in a cheque-dishonour case lies with the court where the cheque is dishonoured. The governing rule, as clarified by the Supreme Court, was applied prospectively, and the pending complaints that had not crossed the relevant evidentiary stage were required to be pursued in the competent court. The orders of cognizance were not set aside on merits, but the complaints were to be withdrawn and re-presented before the proper forum.

Conclusion: The Panposh court was not the proper forum for further trial, and the complaints were directed to be withdrawn and filed before the competent Magistrate at Barbil.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to cognizance failed on the merits of authorisation and court fee, but the proceedings were redirected to the court having territorial jurisdiction for continuation in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque-dishonour prosecution by a company, a complaint may be validly initiated through an authorised representative, and a territorial-jurisdiction defect requires the complaint to proceed in the competent court rather than be quashed solely on technical grounds.

---