Prima facie standard at charge stage bars final testing of disputed documents; company representation was also regularised.

At the stage of charge, the court must confine itself to whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case and grave suspicion; it cannot weigh defence material or finally decide the genuineness of disputed documents. On that footing, contemporaneous complaints, bank intimation, newspaper notices, witness statements, and handwriting/FSL material were treated as sufficient to require trial, and the discharge order was set aside. The company's authorised representative was also permitted to continue prosecuting the petition after production of a board resolution, since the request was only to regularise representation already being acted upon in the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the discharge order passed by the revisional court, after evaluating the disputed documents and applying presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, was sustainable at the stage of charge. (ii) Whether the complainant company's authorised representative could be permitted to prosecute the petition after the demise of the earlier director-representative.

Issue (i): Whether the discharge order passed by the revisional court, after evaluating the disputed documents and applying presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, was sustainable at the stage of charge.

Analysis: At the stage of charge, the court is only to see whether the material collected by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case and gives rise to grave suspicion; it cannot weigh defence material or decide the genuineness of disputed documents. The complainant's version, the contemporaneous NCR, bank intimation, newspaper notices, witness statements, and the handwriting/FSL material were sufficient to show a prima facie case of theft and forgery. The revisional court went beyond the permissible scope by treating defence documents as established facts and by applying presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act to conclude that the cheques and covering letters were genuine. Such disputed questions of authenticity had to be tested in trial.

Conclusion: The discharge order was set aside and the order framing charges was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant company's authorised representative could be permitted to prosecute the petition after the demise of the earlier director-representative.

Analysis: The complainant was the company, and its representation had earlier been carried by its director. After his , the company produced a board resolution authorising the new representative, who had already been acting on behalf of the company before the lower courts. The request was only to regularise the company's representation in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The application was allowed and the authorised representative was permitted to represent the complainant company.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings resulted in restoration of the prosecution, with the revisional discharge being overturned and the matter directed to continue before the trial court on the basis of the prima facie material.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of charge, disputed documents and defence versions cannot be conclusively assessed, and an order of discharge is unwarranted where the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case and grave suspicion requiring trial.

---