Chequer dishonour proceedings survive technical objections where pleadings show company liability, notice, and authorised cheque issuance.
In a cheque dishonour prosecution, technical objections to the complainant's description and the authority of the power of attorney holder did not justify quashing where the complaint specifically pleaded the company's collective decision, issuance of cheques through the authorised signatory, notice to the company and directors, and their role in the transaction. The omission of a word from the company name was treated as a curable misdescription, and questions about the power of attorney holder's personal knowledge and affidavit defects were held to be matters for trial and cross-examination, not threshold grounds to defeat cognizance.
Issues: (i) Whether the criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable against a juristic person because of misdescription of the company name and alleged non-compliance with vicarious liability requirements; (ii) Whether the complaint and sworn statement were vitiated because the power of attorney holder allegedly lacked personal knowledge and the affidavit and accompanying documents were defective.
Issue (i): Whether the criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be quashed on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable against a juristic person because of misdescription of the company name and alleged non-compliance with vicarious liability requirements.
Analysis: The complaint contained averments that the company, through its directors, had taken a collective decision to discharge the admitted liability and had issued post-dated cheques through the authorised signatory. It also pleaded that the accused were in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company. The notice issued on the dishonour of cheques was addressed to the company and its directors, and the reply disclosed receipt of the notice, part payment, and a defence on the merits. The omission of the word "Global" in the complaint description was treated as a technical objection that did not alter the substance of the allegation or the identity of the entity against whom proceedings were initiated. Such objections were held to be matters for trial rather than grounds for quashing.
Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability on the ground of misdescription and absence of a juristic person as party was rejected; the proceedings were not liable to be quashed on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and sworn statement were vitiated because the power of attorney holder allegedly lacked personal knowledge and the affidavit and accompanying documents were defective.
Analysis: The power of attorney holder stated that he was authorised to file the complaint and that he had knowledge and information regarding the transaction. The complaint and affidavit asserted the accused's role in the transaction, the issuance and dishonour of cheques, and the relevant particulars of the notices and instruments. The Court held that, at the stage of cognizance, the relevant consideration is the averments in the complaint and sworn statement, while the veracity of the witness's knowledge and the evidentiary value of the affidavit are matters to be tested in cross-examination and during trial. The alleged defects in the affidavit and non-marking of documents were treated as insufficient to defeat the proceedings at the threshold, particularly in the prevailing pandemic-related circumstances.
Conclusion: The objections regarding the power of attorney holder's knowledge and the alleged affidavit defects did not warrant quashing of the proceedings.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed, and the criminal prosecution was permitted to proceed to trial, with the interim stay application rendered unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of quashing or cognizance in a cheque dishonour prosecution, technical objections as to misdescription of the complainant or the authorisation and knowledge of a power of attorney holder cannot override specific pleadings showing the accused's role, notice, and issuance of cheques; such objections are ordinarily matters for trial.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
