TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Branch Manager lacked authority to file dishonour of cheque complaints without proper power of attorney authorization</h1> <h3>The Kerala State Cooperative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd. Versus S.L. Jain</h3> The Punjab & Haryana HC dismissed an appeal against acquittal in a dishonour of cheque case. The Branch Manager filed criminal complaints in January ... Dishonour of Cheque - acquittal of accused - locus standi to file the criminal complaints being the Branch Manager of the complainant-federation - HELD THAT:- It transpires that the complaints were filed by Sh. A.N. Pillai in his capacity as the Branch Manager of the complainant government undertaking in the month of January, 1995 whereas the power of attorney was executed in his favour by the complainant federation on 28.06.1995, proved on record as Ex.P5. Vide the said power of attorney, the Managing Director of the complainant federation appointed the Branch Manager as the general attorney. However, there was no clause in the in the power of attorney dated 28.06.1995, executed in favour of the Branch Manager, ratifying the acts of Branch Manager retrospectively. It comes to the fore that on the date the complaints were filed by Sh. A.N. Pillai, Branch Manager, acting on behalf of the complainant federation, there was no such power of attorney duly authorizing the Branch Manager to file the said complaints. The power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt. Furthermore, the trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour, while deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses. A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandrappa [2007 (2) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down the parameters with regard to the power of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and held that 'If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.' This Court finds that learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar - Appeal dismissed. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
