FALCON TYRES LIMITED Vs. MOHAN RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting legal question has been raised by smt. K. P. Santhi, a junior advocate, who argued the case for the appellant. The question is whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under Sec. 256 (1) of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short'the Code' ')when the complainant in the case is a company or a firm" According to thelearned counsel, no Magistrate can, in such a case, acquit the accused under sec. 256 (1) of the Code due to the absence of complainant. If the said contention can be upheld this appeal has to be allowed even without getting into the merits.

(2.) APPELLANT herein is M/s. Falcon Tyres Limited, which is a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as "the company" ). A complaint was filed in the Magistrate's court in which the company has been shown as the complainant. The company was to be represented in the case by its Manager. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent has committed the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint reached the trial stage in the lower court, but on 6. 7. 1991 learned magistrate recorded that the complainant was absent. Therefore, he acquitted the accused under Sec. 256 (1) of the Code. APPELLANT obtained special leave to file this appeal.

(3.) IN all such cases there can be no doubt that a complaint must be a human person and not a juristic person.