Authorised representative complaints under Section 138 are maintainable for firms when authority is shown and presumption remains unrebutted.

A complaint under Section 138 filed in a firm's name through its authorised Branch Manager was held maintainable where the partnership deed, registration details and resolution showed proper authority; the stricter requirement of an explicit assertion of the representative's knowledge was not applied rigidly to a firm complaint, and cognizance was therefore valid. The accused also failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 on a preponderance of probabilities, as the cheque issuance, dishonour, demand notice and underlying liability were supported by oral and documentary evidence. Liability under Section 138 was consequently sustained, and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed in the name of a firm through its authorised Branch Manager is maintainable, and whether the requirement of a specific assertion regarding the representative's knowledge applies in the same manner to such complaints; (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was liable to be convicted under Section 138.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 can be prosecuted by an authorised representative of a firm, and whether a specific assertion of knowledge is indispensable in the complaint.

Analysis: The complaint was instituted in the name of the firm and represented by its Branch Manager, whose authority was supported by the partnership deed, registration particulars, and a resolution authorising him to act for the firm. The governing principle is that the complaint must be in the name of the payee, while the manner in which a company or firm is represented is a matter of general law. The distinction drawn in the later three-judge Bench authority is that the strict formulation requiring an explicit assertion of knowledge in the complaint is not to be read rigidly against complaints by companies or firms; an authorised employee may represent such a complainant, and prima facie averments of authorisation and knowledge are sufficient to take cognizance.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the finding that the Branch Manager was incompetent to file it was unsustainable. The issue is answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption and escaped liability for the dishonour of the cheques.

Analysis: The complainant adduced oral and documentary evidence showing issuance of the cheques, dishonour, statutory demand, and the subsisting liability. The account statement and supporting receipts corroborated the business dealings and the outstanding amount. Once execution of the cheques was established, the statutory presumptions operated and the burden shifted to the accused to raise a probable defence. On the materials on record, the accused did not discharge that burden on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption and was liable to be convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This issue is also decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was restored, the acquittal was set aside, and the sentence with compensation was imposed in consequence of the finding of guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by a company or firm, an authorised representative may prosecute the complaint on prima facie proof of authority and knowledge, and the accused must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 on a preponderance of probabilities.

---