Authorisation to proceed and cheque dishonour jurisdiction: representative complaints may be instituted, and misfiled matters should be transferred.

A society resolution authorising an attorney to "proceed" in all cases was held sufficient to empower the representative to institute cheque-dishonour complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, because the term covers commencement of proceedings as well as their conduct. In the territorial-jurisdiction issue, the complaint could not be dismissed outright merely for want of jurisdiction; applying the governing cheque-dishonour jurisdiction rules and Section 177 CrPC, the matter was required to be transferred to the court having territorial jurisdiction rather than non-suited. The finding on authorisation was set aside, and the connected matter was remanded for transfer to the proper court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the witness/attorney was authorised under the Society's resolution to file and initiate the complaints on behalf of the complainant. (ii) Whether the Magistrate at Quepem lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and, if so, whether the matter ought to have been transferred to the court having jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the witness/attorney was authorised under the Society's resolution to file and initiate the complaints on behalf of the complainant.

Analysis: The resolution authorised the appointed attorney to represent the Society in civil and criminal courts and to "conduct, lead Evidence, represent and proceed all the cases, disputes litigations, executions, proceedings including criminal cases" on behalf of the Society. The expression "proceed" was construed in its ordinary and dictionary sense as meaning to begin a course of action and not merely to continue pending proceedings. In the context of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant Society could act only through an authorised representative, and the resolution was held sufficient to confer authority to institute the complaints.

Conclusion: The authority point was answered in favour of the appellant, and the finding of lack of authorisation was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate at Quepem lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and, if so, whether the matter ought to have been transferred to the court having jurisdiction.

Analysis: The jurisdiction question was considered in the light of the law governing territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases, including Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Supreme Court's clarification that jurisdiction lies with the court where the cheque is dishonoured, while cases already beyond the pre-summoning stage are to continue or be transferred in accordance with the directions issued. Since the complaint had proceeded beyond the relevant stage, dismissal for want of jurisdiction was not the proper course. The correct course was to transfer the matter to the jurisdictional court at Ponda rather than non-suit the complainant.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction point was answered in favour of the appellant to the extent that the matter could not be dismissed outright and had to be remanded for transfer to the proper court.

Final Conclusion: One appeal was allowed and the conviction order restored, while the connected matter was allowed in part and remanded for transfer to the court having territorial jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A resolution authorising a representative to "proceed" in all cases may validly confer authority to institute complaints, and in cheque dishonour prosecutions territorial jurisdiction must be determined by the place of dishonour, with pending matters to be transferred rather than dismissed outright where the governing directions so require.

---