TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- from the revision petitioner and for repayment of the balance of the said amount with interest thereon he, (the respondent/ accused), as co-obligant, had issued a cheque for Rs. 65,200/-. The said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The complainant/company claimed that despite service of notice of dishonour of cheque, the respondent having failed to pay the amount, the latter had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. A contention was taken on behalf of the respondent/accused in the Trial Court that though his signature was on the cheque, contents of the cheque had not been filled by him and that he had not stood surety for repayment of any loan taken by Vasanthkumar. On consideration of the evidence, the Learned Trial Judge held that issuance of cheque for repayment had been proved and that ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act having been disclosed, the accused/respondent was liable to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, he convicted the respondent and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment of the Appellate Court is mainly based on the principles laid down by this Court in Dr. Uma Gangadhar v. Classic Coffee and Spices Private Limited, Chickmagalur, but that the principles laid down in the said decision have been misapplied by the Learned Appellate Judge. He submits that the observation of this Court in the said case of Dr. Uma Gangadhar was with regard to an Assistant Manager and an Assistant Manager cannot be equated with the Managing Director of the Company. Since the respondent-Company had been represented by the Managing Director of the Company, the question of authorization did not arise. It is further submitted by him that even otherwise also this contention that there was no proper authorization to file the complaint had not been taken during trial and before conviction and not even in the appeal memo, but that it was taken only later and that therefore the Learned Appellate Judge ought not to have taken into consideration that belated plea of the respondent. 8. Replying to this, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the observations of the High Court in Dr. Uma Gangadhar's case apply to the present case also and that since it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court in M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., and Anr. 2002CriLJ266 maintainability of a complaint by Company for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been considered and the following principles has been laid down: Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, the respondent Company issued two cheques, one dated 31.10.1994 and another dated 10.11.1994, in favour of the appellant Company. Both the cheques when presented for payment were returned with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". After issuing notices, the appellant lodged two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through one L, the Manager of its regional office. The respondent filed two petitions for quashing of the said complaints. Allowing the petitions the High Court held that the complaints were not maintainable. The High Court further held that the Manager (who had lodged the complaints) and the Deputy General Manager (who was substituted), were merely paid employees of the appellant Company and had not been authorised by the Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint on behalf of the Company or to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch officer had been specifically authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the Company does not arise at all. In that view of the matter, the Learned Sessions Judge was wholly in error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction solely on the ground that the revision petitioner had not produced the proper authorization. 15. The next question that arises is whether the matter has to be remanded or it can be disposed of in this revision petition. The Appellate Court has considered the matter on merits. It has not accepted the contention of the respondent-accused that the blank signed cheques had been stolen by Vasantha Kumar and such stolen cheques could have been given to the complainant/revision petitioner. 16. The Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence discloses this possibility. On going through evidence, I find that the contention taken by the accused is apparently not true. In the evidence he contended that his cheque leaf had been taken by Vasanthkumar and Vasanthkumar had given that cheque leaf to the complainant. In other words, Vasanthkumar had deceived the complainant. The accused admits that in the Trial Court, Vasanthkumar sto....