Karnataka High Court
Director Maruti Feeds And Farms Pvt. ... vs Basanna Pattekar on 5 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008CRILJ157, 2007(5)KLJ319, AIR 2008 (NOC) 140 (KAR.) = 2007 (6) AIR KAR R 251, 2008 (3) ALJ (NOC) 657 (KAR.) = 2008 CRI. L. J. 157, 2008 (1) ABR (NOC) 130 (KAR.) = 2007 (6) AIR KAR R 251, 2007 (6) AIR KAR R 251
Author: V.G. Sabhahit
Bench: V.G. Sabhahit
JUDGMENT V.G. Sabahit, J.
1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal filed by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 5-8-2006 passed by the JMFC, Dharwad in CC No. 483/2003.
2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W. 1 is a Director of the complainant-company and he was authorised to depose on behalf of the company and the trial Court was not justified in holding that P.W. 1 had no authority to depose on behalf of the company and that the trial Court has erred in holding that the complainant has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. I have considered the contentions of Learned Counsel with reference to the material on record. It is not disputed that the complainant is a company registered under the Companies Act and P.W. 1 apart from his own self serving statement that he is the Director who is authorised to depose on behalf of the company, has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he is the Director and he has been authorised by the company to depose on behalf of the company. The resolution of the company is not produced and he has pleaded his ignorance in the cross examination about the resolution passed by the Board of Directors. Since the company is a juristic person, any person on behalf of the company has to be authorised by the company under the Articles of Association or by a separate resolution to depose on behalf of the company and therefore, finding of the Trial Court is justified and it is unnecessary to go into the other reasons recorded by the Trial Court in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused. I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. However, acquittal of the accused on the ground that P.W.1 has failed to prove that he was authorised by the company to depose on its behalf would not preclude the appellant to work out the remedy in accordance with law as other contentions are not gone into while confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
Accordingly appeal is disposed of with the above said observations.