https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392666 In a company prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the authority of the person signing or representing the complainant must be proved by admissible evidence. The court found that the photocopy of the authorisation letter had been only provisionally received, the alleged signatory was not examined, and proper proof was not adduced, so rejection of that document could not be faulted. However, because authorisation went to the competence of the complaint, the complainant was to be given an opportunity to prove it properly. The acquittal was set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration on authorisation and representation. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:42:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392666 In a company prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the authority of the person signing or representing the complainant must be proved by admissible evidence. The court found that the photocopy of the authorisation letter had been only provisionally received, the alleged signatory was not examined, and proper proof was not adduced, so rejection of that document could not be faulted. However, because authorisation went to the competence of the complaint, the complainant was to be given an opportunity to prove it properly. The acquittal was set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration on authorisation and representation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392666