RAKESH ARORA Vs. HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitions bearing CRL.M.C. No.2811/2016, CRL.M.C. No.2814/2016 & CRL.M.C. No.2815/2016 filed by the same petitioner Shri Rakesh Arora against the same respondent Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories seek the quashing of the summoning order dated 22.03.2006 in CC No.2174/2001, order dated 02.12.2005 in CC No.2175/2001 and order dated 27.04.2006 in CC No.2176/2001 whereby the petitioner herein has in each of the said cases been summoned for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The said three orders read to the effect:

(2.) The chief contention raised through the petitions is that the said three complaint cases in which the summoning orders have been issued are not maintainable in as much as the summons had been issued on the basis of the deposition of a Power of Attorney holder who had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case and without any specific assertions as to the knowledge. The petitioner further submits that the deposition that has been made through the pre-summoning evidence is of Shri Javed Akhtar who has also signed the complaint alleging himself to be the power of attorney holder of the complainant. The petitioner has further submitted that the said power of attorney has been filed as alleged to be executed by Shri Abdul Mueed, Chief Mutwali and that in the entire complaint or the affidavit there is no whisper as to how the said alleged Power of Attorney holder had the personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case and as to how he was directly involved in the sequence of events. The petitioner has further submitted that in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2014 11 SCC 790, no notice can be issued on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 upon the deposition of a power of attorney having no knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case and not directly involved in the sequence of events.

(3.) Inter alia the petitioner has submitted that the complaints are also not maintainable in as much as they are based on a power of attorney allegedly given in the name of the Trust by Shri Abdul Mueed, Chief Mutwalli and that a Trust is not a legal entity and as such neither the Trust nor a single Trustee can sue in the name of the Trust and all the trustees being the legal entity are bound to join in the action and that neither the Trust nor a single trustee can give a power of attorney to sue in the name of the Trust and trustees and that the complaints having not been filed by all trustees who were not joined in the action, the complaint cases are not maintainable in law and no summons could have been issued.