Calcutta High Court
Mohonlal Khemchand And Ors. vs Pawan Kumar Mohanka And Ors. on 21 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ2927
ORDER
A.B. Mukherjee, j.
1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated 9-9-92 whereby the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta rejected the prayer of the accused petitioner for dropping of the proceeding in Case No. 111 of 1992 under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The complainant opposite party filed a complaint before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 138 N. I. Act alleging that he being the Manager of the share department of M/s. Albert Devid Ltd., was authorised to file a complaint. The complainant company supplied their products for which a sum of Rs. 4,35,808.25 was due up to 5-1 -90 and receivable from accused No. 1 who issued acheque but the said cheque was dis-honoured. Ultimately, accused No. 3 issued another cheque on 22-11-91 but the said cheque was also dis-honoured on 10-12-91. Two demand notices were served but no payment was made and as such the complaint was filed. Following issuence of process the petitioners appeared before the Ld. C.M.M., on 13-3-92 and were released on bail. Thereafter, they also filed an application for dropping of the case since the Manager was not the payee and he could not make the complaint in accordance with law. But the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the case was transferred rejected the prayer contained in the application. Accordingly, the revisional application has been filed stating that the complainant is neither the payee nor holder in due course and as such the complaint is bad.
3. The revisional application is being registered by the O.P.No. 1 alone namely, the complainant. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint under Section 138 N. I. Act. It is submitted that initiation of complaint by authorised agent is bad. It has been argued that the complaint has been filed by O.P. in his capacity as Manager to share department of M/s. Albert David Ltd. It has been argued that the complaint should have been filed by the company itself who is represented by the complainant. It is alleged that since this is not done, the complaint is bad.
4. On the other hand, it has been argued by the Opposite party that Section 138 as also Section 141 N. I. Act is as silent about the persons who is eligible to filed a complaint under the said Act. Reference has been made to decisions of the same volume in the support of the contention that unless there is an eligible criterion mentioned in the Act, another one can move the law into motion. It is argued that 142 N. I. Act empowered the payer or holder in due course to make the complaint. It is submitted that M/s. Albert Devid Ltd. is the holder in due course and as he is a juristic person it must act through his officers as has been done in this case. Reference has been made to a case reported in 1993 Cal Cri LR 225. It has also been argued that in terms of averment of the complaint it has been made clear that the complainant was duley authorised by the said company to make the complaint and letter of authorisation was also annexed to the complaint. Reference has also been made to a decision in support of the contention that Manager of a company must be held to be responsible for work done by the company. From this, it has been argued that as Manager of the share departments of the company the complainant was authorised to make the complaint.
5. After giving my careful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and after going through the copy of the complaint, come to the conclusion that no illegality has been committed in the matter of filing the complaint by the complainant. As such I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result the revisional application stands dismissed.