Branch Manager lacked authority to file dishonour of cheque complaints without proper power of attorney authorization

The Punjab & Haryana HC dismissed an appeal against acquittal in a dishonour of cheque case. The Branch Manager filed criminal complaints in January 1995 but received power of attorney only in June 1995, with no retrospective ratification clause. The court held that without proper authorization at the time of filing, the complaints lacked locus standi. Following Supreme Court precedent in Chandrappa, the HC ruled that where two reasonable conclusions are possible from evidence, the appellate court should not disturb trial court's acquittal finding. The appeal was dismissed as no perversity was demonstrated in the trial court's judgment.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Appeals: The appeals were filed against the judgment of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Cases under Section 138 of the NI Act.

2. Factual Background: The complaints were filed by a Government undertaking against the respondent for dishonoring cheques issued for raw rubber bundles. The respondent was convicted initially but acquitted on appeal. The appellant argued that the respondent admitted to issuing the cheques and being present when the demand notice was served.

3. Authority to File Complaints: The Branch Manager filed the complaints on behalf of the appellant government undertaking. However, it was found that at the time of filing, the Branch Manager did not have a valid power of attorney authorizing him to file the complaints. The power of attorney was executed later, without ratifying the earlier actions.

4. Legal Principles: The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act must be instituted in the name of the payee or holder of the cheque. Representation by an authorized employee is permissible if authorized by resolution or power of attorney. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle an order of acquittal is subject to the principle favoring the accused in case of two possible views.

5. Appellate Court's Power: The judgment discussed the parameters of the appellate court's power in dealing with appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for substantial reasons to interfere with an acquittal.

6. Decision: The Court found no perversity in the judgment of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeals as devoid of merit. The judgment highlighted the importance of the presumption of innocence and the appellate court's cautious approach in disturbing findings of acquittal.

7. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, including the background of the appeals, factual circumstances, legal principles applied, the appellate court's power, and the final decision of the Court.

---