BHASIN CREDIT AID LTD Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant "M/s Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd." has preferred this appeal by way of special leave against the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2004 passed by Shri A.K. Sarpal, then M.M., Delhi dismissing its complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act") for absence of authorization in favour of Mr. M.L. Sharma, Manager (Accounts) through whom the said complaint was filed.

(2.) The appellant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent had issued a cheque to the appellant company which when presented to the bank for encashment was bounced. Notice of bouncing of cheque was given by the appellant company to the respondent and as the payment of the bounced cheque was not made despite service of notice, a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed against the respondent through the appellant's Manager (Accounts) Mr. M.L. Sharma. The appellant filed a copy of a Resolution Ex.CW1/7 alongwith the complaint to show authorization in favour of Mr. M.L. Sharma through whom complaint was filed. The learned Court below construed the said resolution as conferring no power on Mr. M.L. Sharma to institute the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent. The view taken by the Court below is that the aforementioned resolution authorized Mr. M.L. Sharma only to file a recovery suit for recovery of the amount of bounced cheque. As the Court below was of the view that since the complaint filed was not by a duly authorized person, the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was dismissed on that ground.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no authorization for filing a criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was required and according to him, any person can set the criminal law into motion and therefore, it is urged that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of absence of proper authorization.