A.C. NARAYANAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 28-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 1016 
A.C. NARAYANAN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007) 
JANUARY 28, 2015. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND · 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
C 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- ss. 138 and 142-
Complaint petition through power of attorney - Magistrate 
took cognizance of the complaint without prima facie 
establishing the fact as to whether (he Power of Attorney 
existed in first place and whether it was in order -Complaint 
D against appe!Jant not preferred by the payee or the holder in 
due course - No statement on oath of the person who filed 
the COf!Jplaint that he filed the complaint having been 
instructed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque 
- Held: Since the complaint was not filed abiding with the 
E provisions of the Act it was not open to the Magistrate to 
take cognizance - No mention of, or reference to the Power 
of Attorney in the body of the complaint nor was it exhibited 
as part of the said complaint- Further, in the list of evidence 
F just a mere mention of the words viz. "Power of Attorney': 
however no date or any other particulars of the Power of 
Attorney mentioned in the complfJint- Even in the verification 
statement made by respondent no. 2, not even a whisper that 
she filed the complaint as the Power of Attorney holder of the 
G . complainant - Even the order of issue of process not 
mentioning that the Magistrate had perused any Power of 
Attorney for issuing process -Appellant stated that his 
Advocate conducted search and inspection of the papers and 
proceedings of the criminal complaint and found that no 
H 
1016 
A. C. NARAYANAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
1017 
Power of Attorney was found to be a part.of that record-
A 
Respondents did not dispute the same - In that view of the 
matter, the Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the matter 
a_nd the Court below erred in putting the onus on the appellant 
rather than the complainant- Proceedings against appellant 
accordingly quashed. 
B 
. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 142-
Complaint petition through power of attorney- One employee 
of the con1plainant Company signed the complaint and 
Deputy General Manager of the Company i.e. PW-1 gave C 
evidence on behalf of the Company under the General Power· · 
of Attorney given by it as if he knows everything though he 
does not know anything - Nothing on the record to suggest 
that he was authorized by the Managing Director or any · 
Director- The complaint was not signed either by Managing D 
Director or Director of the Company- As per Resolution of 
the Company, Managing Director and Director were 
authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the 
debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution and they 
were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to· E 
appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc. -
But nothing on the record suggest that an employee is 
empowered to fife· the complaint on behalf of the Company-
Therefore, the Magistrate rightly acquitted the appellant. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 73 of 2007 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2005 of the 
High Cou,rt of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application G 
Nos. 797, 798, 799,801, 802 and 803 of 2002 
With 
Cri.A. No. 1437 of2013 
. H 
1018 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
lndu Malhotra, Vivek Jain, Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Varun 
B 
Singh, Vikas Mehta, Annam D. N. Rae, S. Sircar, Vaishali R., 
Annam Venkatesh, Himanshu Gupta, Niraj Sharma,Anil Kumar 
Tandale. A. P Mayee, Charudutta Mahindrakar, A. Selvin Raja 
for the Appearing Parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. As the 
question of law involved is common in both the appeals, they 
c are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 
Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007 
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 
o 
The accused-appellant,A.C. Narayanan challenged the 
common order dated 29th November, 2000 passed by the 
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Sandra, 
Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Trial Court') by filing 
applications u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
E 
before the High Court. By the said common order the 
applications preferred by the appellant-A.C.Narayanan for 
discharge/recalling process against him was rejected· by the 
Trial Court. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 12th 
August, 2005, dismissed the ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.