I JAIRAJ Vs. C ARAVINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jairaj, the petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No. 880/97 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for the offences under Ss. 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the case was taken on file on the complaint of the respondent, summons was issued to the petitioner/accused. On appearance the petitioner/accused filed an application under S. 204, Cr. P.C. to drop the proceedings arising out of the private complaint against the petitioner and discharge him. The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the same as no ground was made out to drop the proceedings. This order is challenged in this revision.

(2.) Though several grounds have been raised in the revision, the main crux of the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint is invalid, inasmuch as the same was taken on file against the company represented by its Director Jairaj, the petitioner herein without following the procedure under S. 305, Cr. P.C. According to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, by virtue of S. 305, Cr. P.C. when an incorporate company is sought to be prosecuted for any offence, the right to nominate its representative is within the company itself and the said right cannot be taken away by the pre-emptive act of appointing the petitioner as the representative of the accused company.

(3.) Mr. Niranjan, in reply to the said submission would contend that S. 305, Cr. P.C. would not be applicable to this case as S. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act would provide that the prosecution can be launched against the company through its Director, especially when it is alleged that the petitioner is the person who had signed the cheques as authorised signatory of the company and as such the complaint is valid.