https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296244 A company complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not properly instituted because the Law Officer who presented and verified it had no Board resolution, power of attorney, or other valid authorization from the company, and the Vakalatnama was filed by a director who was not prosecuting the case. The Court also held that, where the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required a mandatory inquiry before process could issue; as no such inquiry was conducted, the order taking cognizance and issuing process was vitiated. The complaint proceeding was quashed. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:12:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296244 A company complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not properly instituted because the Law Officer who presented and verified it had no Board resolution, power of attorney, or other valid authorization from the company, and the Vakalatnama was filed by a director who was not prosecuting the case. The Court also held that, where the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required a mandatory inquiry before process could issue; as no such inquiry was conducted, the order taking cognizance and issuing process was vitiated. The complaint proceeding was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296244