Company representative competence upheld; Section 138 fine cannot exceed statutory ceiling by adding interest.

A company representative with direct knowledge of the transaction and supporting prosecution records was held competent to conduct the prosecution, so the challenge to authorisation failed. Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court may impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, but that statutory ceiling cannot be exceeded by adding interest on the fine. The sentence was therefore held illegal only to the extent it included 9% interest on the fine amount, and it was modified to remain within the permissible limit while the conviction was maintained and compensation preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the authorised officer of the complainant company was competent to represent the company in the prosecution; (ii) whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could validly include a fine exceeding twice the cheque amount by adding interest on the fine amount.

Issue (i): Whether the authorised officer of the complainant company was competent to represent the company in the prosecution.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the witness was the Chief Officer cum Executive Director of the company and had direct knowledge of the transaction. The prosecution documents also supported the transaction, issuance, dishonour of the cheque, and the company's case. On that basis, the finding of the courts below that the witness was competent to represent the company did not suffer from any illegality.

Conclusion: The challenge to the authority of the company representative failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could validly include a fine exceeding twice the cheque amount by adding interest on the fine amount.

Analysis: Section 138 permits imprisonment up to two years, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. While imposition of a fine equal to twice the cheque amount was within the statutory ceiling, the additional interest at 9% per annum on the fine amount pushed the total beyond the permissible limit. The statutory cap could not be crossed by resorting to a default or interest component in the manner of a civil decree.

Conclusion: The sentence was illegal to the extent it imposed interest on the fine amount, and it was modified to keep the punishment within the statutory limit.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was revised by removing the impermissible enhancement and substituting a modified punishment within the statutory ceiling, along with compensation to be paid to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court cannot, by adding interest or a similar enhancement, impose a monetary liability that exceeds twice the cheque amount; the statutory ceiling on fine is absolute.

---