TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....007 seeking leave to file the appeal which was also dismissed on 14-7-2008, giving rise to filing of this appeal by the original complainant. Unfortunately, the accused have also with vehemence supported hypertechnicalities adopted by the aforesaid two courts, to contend that no interference is called for in the light of the facts as found in the aforesaid two orders. 3. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are mentioned herein below : 4. Appellant is a Company (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Company") duly registered under the Act and is carrying on business of manufacturing two and three wheelers' automobile products. Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy is the Factory Manager of the Appellant-Company and has been posted in Mumbai. A resolution has been passed by the Company on 31-12-2001 to authorise Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy, Factory Manager to represent the company and to sign, verify, execute and deliver all vakalatnamas, pleadings, complaints, affidavits, declarations, petitions, written statements, rejoinders, papers, deeds, receipts, assurances etc. in a court of law. On the same day, he has been duly authorised by virtue of the Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have been executed in favour of Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy is a fictitious document. The services of accused No. 1 were never terminated and even after retirement he came to be re-appointed. Thus, he has a right to continue in its possession. As regards his undertaking given to the Chairman of the Company on 5-1-2000, wherein he specifically agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31-1-2000, he contended the same was not tendered voluntarily, meaning thereby the same was given under coercion, threat, undue influence, thus it was not binding. 11. Learned trial court critically examined the Power of Attorney and came to the conclusion that the same was executed on 31-12-2001, was notarised on 5-6-2001, and the stamp papers were purchased on 18-4-2002, which gives rise to suspicion with regard to genuineness and correctness of Power of Attorney. Ultimately, it held that the said Power of Attorney is a fictitious document. Thus, on the strength of it, complaint could not be filed. As regards resolution of the company passed on 31-12-2001 was concerned, it was held that complainant failed to file the same, while he was in the witness box. Admittedly, the company faced financial crisis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....002 and not on 5-6-2001 as has been noted by the trial court. The Rubber stamp seal put by the notary clearly depicts it as 5-6-2002. 19. Thus, after going through the same, it leaves no shadow of doubt in our mind that the same are genuine and duly authorised Mr. V.S. Parthasarthy to file and prosecute the complaint against the accused. We had also passed on the originals to the learned counsel for the respondent-accused to satisfy himself but still, after going through the same he persisted in his arguments tooth and nail that the date of Power of Attorney in fact is 5-6-2001 and not 5-6-2002. However, we are unable to agree to the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused as he is trying to stretch it beyond our comprehension. 20. Admittedly, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court have gone into the merits of the matter. Thus, with an intention to do complete justice to the parties, we have heard the counsel for the parties at length and gone through the merits of this appeal. 21. It is not in dispute that accused No. 1 was appointed as a caretaker to look after the flat of the appellant/company at 'Kamal Mahal' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Carmich....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d section 621 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow : "621. Offences against Act to be cognizable only on complaint by Registrar, shareholder or Government.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act, which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, or of a shareholder of a company, or of a person authorised by the Central Government in that behalf : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a prosecution by a company of any of its officers : Provided further that the court may take cognizance of offence relating to issue and transfer of securities and non-payment of dividend on a complaint in writing by a person authorised by the Securities Exchange Board of India. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), where the complainant under sub-section (1) is the Registrar or a person authorised by the Central Government, the personal attendance of the complainant before the Court trying the offence shall not be necessary unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing requires his personal attendance at....