Bombay High Court
M/S. Credential Financial Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 16 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)BOMCR18, 1999CRILJ1032
ORDER N.J. Pandya, J.
1. The petitioner is the original complainant in the complaint for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. As a result of the complaint, the 38th Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier registered a Case No. 1278/S/ 97 against the respondent No. 1 and its directors.
2. Before the learned Magistrate by filing Exh. D, the accused raised a plea that the complaint is unauthorised and hence it is liable to the dismissed. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 5-8-1998 was pleased to accept this plea and hence dismissed the complaint, passed an order of discharge and recalled the process.
3. The complainant, no doubt, is a company registered under the Companies Act. Section 142 of the said Act will have to be borne in mind, as under the said section, only a payee or a holder in due course can file a complaint. The cheque being in favour of the complainant company, this requirement is fulfilled. However, the point raised by the respondent-accused was as to the lodging of the complaint by Mr. R. Srinivasan describing himself to be the manager of the complainant-company. The heading or the title of the complaint with regard to the parties, particularly with reference to the complainant reads as under :
M/s. Credential Finance Limited a registered limited company through its Manager Mr. R. Srinivasan having his office at 618, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Bombay.
4. As urged before the trial Court as well as before this Court on behalf of the accused, except for the said reference of the complainant-company, filing the complaint through its Manager, neither in the body of the complaint nor by way of documents annexed to the plaint is there any reference to the said manager Mr. Srinivasan having been authorised by the company to lodge the complaint.
5. In the body of the complaint, paragraph 2, the said Mr. Srinivasan asserts the fact that he is the manager of the complaint-company. Thereafter the transaction in the nature of bill discounting referred to pursuant to which the cheque came to be issued which having bounced, the complaint has been lodged. There is no doubt reference 10 the service of the statutory notice in respect of the cheque and averments with regard to the reply etc.
6. There are five documents annexed to the complaint and they refer to bill of exchange, correspondence, cheques and postal receipts with acknowledgments.
7. The learned Magistrate after considering this factual position of the complaint as also various authorities cited by the bar particular he has placed heavy reliance on judgment of Madras High Court reported in (1974(1) Crimes 820).
8. The learned Magistrate also refers to the stand taken by the complainant in the reply dated 24-2-1998 against the said application for discharge etc. that the said Mr. R. Srinivasan is an authorised manager under the resolution. He has brushed aside this stand by saying that it seems to be an after thought and there is no proof on record in support of the same.
9. The learned Magistrate is carried away more by the fact that the authorisation is neither produced along with the complaint nor at the time of taking cognizance and even till date that the said application is considered. It is obvious that the matter was not at the stage of proof and if at that stage no evidence was produced as to the authorisation, dismissal of complaint on that count could well be understood. Inspite of there being Bombay judgment reported in Bratindranath Banerjee, Director, Standard Chartered Bank v. Hiten P. Dalal , on the point, the learned Magistrate distinguished it by the fact that the authorisation of one Mr. Banerjee who was the director of the complainant bank was not challenged.
10. In my opinion this sort of narrow distinction sought to be made in the manner done with regard to the Bombay judgment is totally uncalled for. The complaint having been registered, cognizance having been taken and in the head of the complaint as noted above, the payee company having filed the complaint through one of its employee who described himself to be the Manager, the least that the complainant should get is an opportunity to establish that in fact the person who has filed the complaint on behalf of the payee company is in fact the manager.
11. A manager or the managing director ordinarily by the very nomenclature can be taken to be the person in charge of the affairs of the company for its day to day management and within that activity would certainly be calling the act of approaching the Court either under civil law or criminal law for staying the trial in motion. It would be too technical and narrow, a view to take that in the body of the complaint the authorisation is not elaborated upon and along with documents annexed to the complaint the authorisation is not produced. It is nowhere denied by the accused that the said Mr. Srinivasan is not the Manager. What is insisted upon is absence of authorisation on record and arguments is based thereon that the company has not filed the complaint through its authorised person. Like the said Bombay case the factum of directorship was found to be unchallenged so is the factum of managership going unchallenged in the instant case. Obviously, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable.
12. On this point alone, the matter could have been allowed and disposed of in favour of the complainant. However it is accepted that the amount involved is to the tune of Rs. 1,45,76,000/- coupled with discount charged and overdue interest. On both sides various authorities were cited to support the judgment. Mr. Hegde appearing for the accused respondent thus cited (1997(4) Andhra Pradesh M.R. Journal 58), where the complaint filed by the company represented by its manager was dismissed as the manager was not authorised to file a complaint. Obviously this would be the matter to be established on proof. As could be gathered from the judgment, the facts are summarised in paragraph 3 at page 59. The Metropolitan Magistrate of Hyderabad dealt With Complaint No. 229 of 1993 by way of an acquittal order after appreciating the entire material before him at the end of the trial. In the instant case as noted above, the matter has been dealt with initially as a preliminary issue without affording any opportunity to the complainant and establishing the said claim of Mr. Srinivasan.
13. Another decision relied on by the accused respondent is that of the learned Single Judge of Panaji Bench of this Court who dealt with the winding up of the matter under the Companies Act, 1956. Winding up petition was filed by a constituted attorney of classes of person entitled to seek winding up. An attorney can represent the class creditors or person entitled to seek winding up with the permission of the Court provided he has authorisation. The attorney nevertheless had authorisation to file suit or proceedings against the company for recovery of dues. Winding up proceedings can be equated with proceedings for recovery of dues. As per the decision reported in Shantilal Khushaldas & Bros. v. Smt. Chandan Sughir Shah Com. Cas. Vol. 77 p. 253, authorisation was found to be defective and the petition came to be dismissed. One more decision cited is that of the Supreme Court reported in Ballabhdas Agarwala v. J.C.Chokerwarty . It pertains to a matter under Calcutta Municipal Act 3 of 1923. The municipality had filed a complaint for adulterated articles and conviction was challenged amongst other grounds on the fact that the complainant officer was not duly empowered in that behalf under section 12 of the said Municipal Act. Considering this aspect two of the learned Judges of the three Judges Bench held that in absence of authorisation, complaint itself is non existence and therefore the conviction could not be sustained.
14. However, as could be seen from the said judgment, this being a statutory provision, especially when in absence of any empowerment of the statutory provision, action leading to the penal consequences could not have been initiated the matter would be altogether on a different footing.
15. Coming back to the case on hand, neither the said Act nor the Companies Act, 1956 imposes a precondition that there has to be an authorisation as per statutory provisions. When an artificial person like a company has to file a complaint, it will be operated through one of its officials which may include even a Chairman for Managing director. All that can be insisted upon is the existence of authorisation. In absence of it being a precondition, in the event of dispute, it will become a subject matter of proof to be adduced at the time of trial. In my opinion the said Supreme Court decision would not help the respondent-accused.
16. On behalf of the petitioner several cases have been cited. One is C.B.S. Gramaphone Records & Tapes Ltd., v. P.A. Nooruddin 73 Com.Cas. p.494, of Kerala High Court where an officer of the complainant company, not being a payee under the cheque, the concerned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint. Restoring it, the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court declared that when the officer has been authorised to file the complaint, the complaint will be that of the payee company.
17. Case reported in (1989 S.C.C. page 515), is cited on behalf of the petitioner. This was the matter under section 630 of the Companies Act arising out of a decision of this Court. One of the points urged on behalf of the accused is that the Divisional Sales Manager who had filed the complaint on behalf of the company was not competent to file the same. Agreeing with the view of the Bombay High Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that when the instructions were given to the Sales Manager by the head office of the company to file the complaint, the officer was competent to file the same. In fact view of the Bombay High Court was that the complainant one Mr. Atul Mathur being in the rank of Manager he could validly act on behalf of the company. With reference to the Power of Attorney conferred upon the said company Mr. Atul Mathur disagreeing with the view of the Bombay High Court in para 21 at page 526 the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view of this Court that as Mr. Atul mathur was Divisional Sales Manager of the Company at Bombay, he certainly was competent to file the complaint on behalf of the company as per instructions given to him from the head office of the company. While so observing, Their Lordships have also said that the contention of absence of authority being material irregularity not curable under section 465 Cr.P.C. has been turned down. About the aspect of material of irregularity, submissions were made that that will be dealt hereafter.
18. Decision of Gujarat High Court reported in S. Poosappan v. V. Munniappan 1998 Cr.L.J. 700. There the complaint signed by Administrative Manager the learned Single Judge has categorically held that no special and express authorisation is necessary for initiating proceedings by the said administrative manager for and on behalf of the company. I entire agree with that view.
19. Another decision cited is Jaylaxashmi Natraj v. Geena & Co., 1996 Com. Cas. Vol. 86 page 265. The Senior Accountant filed a complaint on behalf of the company. The complaint was held to be properly instituted. No doubt there was an authorisation by a deed of Power of Attorney in that case.
20. Reliance is also placed on the case reported in B Ratindranath Banerjee, Director, Standard Chartered Bank v. Hiten P. Dalai, , which has been referred to in the order of the trial Court also where my learned brother Mr. Justice S.N. Variava has clearly held that the complaint admittedly filed by director and an officer of the bank not having been filed in his individual capacity is to be understood as a complaint by the bank. I respectfully agree with that view.
21. About the submission that it would not be a mere irregularity but a material irregularity if there is no authorisation from the beginning on behalf of the respondent-accused it was sought to be equated with sanction to be given before prosecution thus need various statutory provisions. Bombay High Court decision given under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 reported in State of Maharashtra v. Pankaj A. Gupta, 1995 (1) Crimes page 203, was vest into service for the purpose. Two more cases under the Code of Civil Procedure were also cited. One is (A.I.R. 1981 Del. 25) and another of the very Court (A.I.R. 1985 Del. 65). In both the matters it was found that the person who either filed a suit or sought leave to defend had no authority to do so.
22. As stated above, this would be a matter of proof with regard to the submission that absence of authority be equated with absence of sanction required under the statute. The submission is dealt with for the purpose of record only. Obviously, in absence of any statutory provision of that nature in the said Act, the contention cannot be permitted to be raised to that level.
23. In my opinion, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The petition is therefore allowed. Order of the trial Court is set aside. The complaint is restored at the stage where it was for being dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
24. Petition allowed.