MAHESH VERMA Vs. FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid three applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.) assailing the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubanswar in three separate complaint petitions filed by the opposite party in all the three cases, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the N.I. Act') alleging bouncing of three cheques issued by the present petitioner in favour of the complainant-opposite party.

(2.) The factual scenario is not in dispute. The present petitioner issued three separate cheques in favour of the opposite party, a proprietorship firm amounting to Rs.25,800/-, Rs.52,090/- and Rs.41,100/- towards value of certain goods received by him from the opposite party-complainant in course of business transactions. The three cheques were placed in Bank by the opposite party but all the three cheques were bounced with the note "EXCEEDS ARRANGEMENT". Thereafter since the petitioner did not pay the amount despite notices, three separate petitions were filed in respect of three cheques by the present opposite party-firm represented by its Constituted Attorney Shri Mahendra Kumar Pradhan, Law Officer of the complainant firm. Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar taking initial statement of the legal presentative passed the impugned order of cognizance in all the three cases and directed for issuance of summons to the present petitioner as accused.

(3.) The sole ground on which the present three applications have been filed assailing the order of cognizance is that although the complaint petition was filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the proprietorship firm, still learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar took cognizance of the offence ignoring the mandatory requirements in a case where the complaint is filed by the Power of Attorney holder and hence, the impugned order of cognizance in all the three cases is illegal and is liable to be set aside. In the application, it was submitted that the Power of Attorney holder could not have filed the complaint in absence of the complainant, namely, the proprietor of the firm as the payee of the cheques, apart from the facts that the Power of Attorney holder did not file the Power of Attorney before the court along with the complaint petition nor the permission of the court was sought for to file the complaint by the Power of Attorney holder. It was also submitted that the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar did not have territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the cases. However, at the time of submission, it was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the settled positions of law, the Power of Attorney holder can maintain a complaint before the court and the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar has territorial jurisdiction to the application. The only contention that was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that as per the settled position of law, when a complaint petition is filed by the Power of Attorney holder, the said Power of Attorney must be placed before the court for perusal by the concerned court and the Power of Attorney holder should take permission of the court to file the complaint on behalf of the payee and in the last but not the least, the Power of Attorney holder must have personal or direct knowledge about the transactions with specific mention in that regard in the complaint petition. It was submitted that all these requirements having not been complied with in the three cases, learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar erred in law by taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner as accused.