N KANNAN VICE PRESIDENT OPERATIONS S AND S INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES LTD MADRAS Vs. AGRI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE TAMIL NADU LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the High Court will be pleased to call for the Records in (1) C.C.Nos.4172 and 4171 of 1999 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai (in Crl.O.P.Nos.1548 and 15496 of 1999), (2) C.C.Nos.5137 and 5122 of 1998 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai (in Crl.O.P. Nos.13771 and 13772 of 1999) (3) in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, Chennai-15 (in Crl.O.P.No.13773 of 1999), etc.) 1. Crl.O.P.Nos.15488 and 15496 of 1999 are filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 in C.C.Nos.4172 of 1999 and 4171 of 1999 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore to quash the proceedings under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C.

(2.) CRL.O.P.Nos.13772 and 13773 of 1999 have been filed by the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 in C.C.Nos.5122 and 2546 of 1999 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, under Sec.482, CRL.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

(3.) THE criminal revision case has been filed by the accused alleging that the learned Magistrate has erred in allowing the application without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a counter. THE substitution petition was filed by the complainant and notice was given to the other side. However, the Court below has passed an order alleging that other side has no objection, which is patently wrong. THE counsel for the accused never made an endorsement and in fact, sought time only to file counter. THE Board of Resolution dated 19.4.2000 in favour of one Mr.V.Singaravelan, authorising him to pursue the complaint in the place of the Original Power of Attorney Agent, Mr.S.Madhu is only to fill up the lacunae. In short, on the strength of the Managing Director of the Company and in order to ratify the act of the Managing Director, on the strength of the Board Resolution dated 19.4.2001, substituting Mr.Singaravelan in the place of Mr.Madhu, the application has been filed. THE learned Magistrate, allowed the application for substitution and as the resolution goes to the root of the matter and virtually it ratifies the earlier act of the complainant, the company has no locus standi to execute the same and as such, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 2.6.2000 is liable to be set aside. 7.-A THE learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants in the respective petitions contended that authorisation letter has been filed in some cases and power of Attorney has been filed in some cases. So far as the substitution is concerned, notice was already given to the counsel for the petitioners and as they have stated no objection, the substitution petition was allowed. When evidently the documents in the nature of Power of Attorney or authorisation has been filed, the question whether they are valid and binding are matters that could be considered in the course of trial. THE contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted and the complaint cannot be thrown out on these grounds. THE grounds now raised by the petitioners are matters that have to be decided on the basis of evidence and opportunity has to be given to the respondents to establish the same.