P A VERGHESE Vs. MAA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to these two petitions are that at the request of A-1 the complainant undertook advertising of the products manufactured by A-1 against which the complainant raised invoices from time to time on various dates till 8-6-1993. The accused No. 1 made certain payments towards the said supplies made by the complainant. After giving deduction to the payments made by A-1, a sum of Rs. 13,76,914.78 was due to the complainant which amount the accused failed and neglected to pay to the complainant despite repeated demands and reminders. The accused No. 1 issued three cheques towards payment of the sum due which are as follows : 1. Cheque No. 344578 dated 15-9-93 for Rs. 6,00,185.92.

(2.) Cheque No. 344580 dated 30-9-93 for Rs. 96,895.86 and

(3.) Cheque No. 344581 dated 30-9-93 for Rs. 3,79,833.00, drawn on Canara Bank, Lavelle Road, Bangalore. When these cheques were presented for encashment on 3-11-1993, the cheques were dishonoured by the bankers of the accused with an endorsement "not arranged for". Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated 19-11-1993 calling upon the accused therein to pay the amount covered under the aforesaid cheques. The said notice was issued by the accused on 20-11-1993 without any demure. Since the accused neither sent any reply nor settled the account, lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement directed to issues process to the accused persons. The said order is questioned by Antony Vergues who is said to be the Director by preferring Criminal Petition No. 82123/94 and the company, representing its Director Antony Vergues and Tina Antony in Criminal Petition No. 1825/94 questioning the order. 2. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. The petitioner has raised three contentions in his petition. Firstly, it is contended that the complaint was filed by a person who is said to be the power of attorney holder of the complainant-company. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been rejected by the Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence. The learned Counsel for the respondent repelling this argument submitted that it is a settled law that anybody who is having the knowledge of the affairs of the company can file the complaint before the Court against the accused persons. Besides he being a P.A. holder, he is also working as Accounts Officer in the complainant Company, he is aware of all the transactions of the company. Therefore the complaint is maintainable. In support of his argument he placed reliance ort a decision reported in 1995 Cri LJ 1102. Wherein the Madras High Court has held that - The P.A. holder can file the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In addition to that he also placed a reliance in 1996 Cri LJ 2927 (M/s. Mohanlal Khemchand v. Pawan Kumar Mohanka), wherein the Calcutta High Court has held that (Para 4) -