JAYALAKSHMI NATARAJ Vs. JEENA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 4792 of 1993, on the file of the XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Then coming to the next point, viz., the authorisation in favour of Unnikrishnan, who has signed the complaint, the complaint has been filed by Jeena and Company, which is the payee of the cheque. As the complainant is a firm, some human agency has to act on behalf of the firm. Therefore, the person who has signed the complaint, viz., Unnikrishnan, has described himself in the complaint itself that he is the senior assistant of the company.Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decisions in Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. K. S. Selvamani [1994] 1 LW (Crl.) 337 ; and Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu [1994] 1 LW (Crl.) 34 ; would argue that without the production of the power of attorney or authorisation in favour of the person, who has signed the complaint, the complaint is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. Those two cases relate to the filing of the complaint by the manager and other officers on behalf of the payee. As the person, who was not mentioned as payee in the cheque, had filed those complaints, it was held in those cases that without the authorisation or power of attorney, such complaints were not maintainable. But this is a case in which the payee, viz., Jeena and Company, itself has filed the complaint and the complaint has been signed by the senior accountant, P. Unnikrishnan. The power of attorney dated November 18, 1992, has been produced now before me to show that the said Unnikrishnan was permitted to act on behalf of the Jeena and Company. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the signatory to the complaint has no power to sign on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, the second point also has no force. Under section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint shall be filed by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque, As mentioned above, Jeena and Company, which is the partnership firm, has launched the complaint and, therefore, when the payee has launched the complaint, there cannot be any objection that the complaint has not been properly initiated. The signatory to the complaint has described himself in the cause title itself that he is the senior assistant. Whether he is the senior assistant or not, is a matter to be considered in the evidence at the time of trial and to satisfy this court now, the power of attorney also is produced. Therefore, I find that there is no merit in this petition to quash the proceedings.In the result, the petition is dismissed.