FINOLEX INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. PRAVIN V SHETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant seeks quashing of the order dated 5.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai in Criminal Case No.985/S/1997 recalling the process against respondents no.1 to 5.

(2.) THE applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 6.3.1996. This complaint was neither signed nor verified by the complainant but the complaint was signed by M/s. Crawford Bayley and Company, Advocate for the complainant. It appears that no Vakalatnama had also been given by the complainant in favour of M/s. Crawford Bayley and Co. for the purpose of filing the complaint. The verification of the complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 6.5.1996. The process was issued against the respondents on 17.9.1996. The application for recall of process was filed by all the respondents on 23.3.2001. The complainant filed reply on 12.7.2001. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that since the complaint was not signed by the complainant nor any Vakalatnama was filed by the complainant in favour of M/s. Crawford Bayley and co., the complaint was no complaint in the eyes of law. Relying upon the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of M.A. Abdul Khuthoos Vs. M/s. Ganesh and Coy Oil Mills (1999 Cr.L.J . 2432) , the application for recall of process was allowed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondents urged before me that complaint has to be signed by the complainant. In case complaint is made orally to the Magistrate, the Magistrate is required to record the same and the complainant has to sign the same and in case the complaint is in writing,it has necessarily to be signed by the complainant. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that in the case under consideration, neither the complaint was signed by the complainant nor even Vakalatnama was given by the complainant to M/s. Crawford Bayley and co., who had signed the complaint and, therefore, when the complaint was presented it was no complaint in the eyes of law and the subsequent verification after the period of limitation would not in any manner help the complainant in view of the fact that such complaint complete in all respects is required to be made under Section 142 (b) within one month of the date of cause of action under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 and on the date of verification. According to him, the complaint on the date of verification under Section 200 Cr.P.C . on 6.5.1996 was very much beyond the period of limitation due to which the Court could not have taken cognizance of the matter under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He, therefore, contends that the order of the trial Court does not call for any interference whatsoever.