A C NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the last date Counsel for the parties were heard. These Applications are filed by the Accused in Complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,(hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1881"). The challenge in these Applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") is to the order dated 29th November 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The prayer is for calling for the records of the case pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. By the order impugned the Application made by the Applicant for discharge/recalling process has been rejected by the learned trial Judge. Since the facts of all the applications are admittedly more or less similar, for the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts of Criminal Application No.803 of 2005.

(2.) THE original Complainant is one Shaikh Anwar Karim Bux and the Respondent No.2 herein is his Power of Attorney holder. The complaint is signed and filed by the Respondent No.2 who is the Constituted Attorney of the Complainant. Verification of the Respondent No.2 was recorded and on 3rd April 1998 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued the process. The Application for discharge/recalling of the order of process has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has made diverse submissions. However, I am referring to only those submissions made by the learned Counsel which are relevant to the case. Placing reliance on various decisions of this Court, other High Courts and the Apex Court he submitted that a power of attorney holder can sign and verify the complaint under section 138 of the said Act of 1881. He submitted that the Respondent No.2 being the constituted attorney had rightly verified the complaint. He submitted that the application is belatedly filed and hence it should not be entertained. He submitted that instead of impleading the original Complainant as party to the Application, the Applicant has impleaded the power of attorney holder of the original Complainant as a party. He submitted that the plea is already recorded and thus at this stage the application should not be entertained.