LexM/S SHANKAR FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 905
MIS SHANKAR FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS
A
V.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1449 of 2003)
JUNE 26, 2008
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
ss. 138 and 142(a)- Complaint u/s 138 signed b11 power
of attorney-holder of a proprietary concern - Maintainability c
of - HELD: Power of Attorney Holder can initiate criminal pro-
ceedings on behalf of his principal - In a criminal complaint
relating to an offence under s. 138, it is permissible to lodge
complaint in the name of proprietary concern itself - Code of
=·
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 190 and 200.
D
MMTC Ltd. vs. MEDCHL Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.
2002(1) sec 234; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. VS. Keshvanand
1998(1) sec 687; and Ram Chander Prasad Sharma VS. State
of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 349 - relied on.
E
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 190 and 200 - Complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable In-
struments Act signed by Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of
payee proprietary concern - HELD: Object of s.200 in provid-
F
ing for examination of complainant and his witnesses by Court
is to satisfy itself about the existence of a prima facie case
against the person accused of offence and to ensure that such
person is not harassed by false and vexatious complaints by
issue of process - Where proprietor of proprietary .concern
.
has personal knowledge of transaction and has singed the
G
I
-t
complaint, he has to be examined under s. 200 of the Code -
A Power of Attorney Holder of complainant who does not have
personal knowledge, cannot be examined - Where Power of
Attorney Holder of complainant is in charge of the business of
905
H
f
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 10 S.C.R.
"
A
payee-complainant and he alone is personally aware of trans-
··-
actions, and complaint is signed by him on behalf of the
payee-complainant, he can be examined as the complainant
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 142(a).
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs. State of West Bengal 1973(3)
~
B SCC 753; and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. lndusind Bank
Ltd. 2005(2) sec 217 - relied on.
Practice and Procedure:
c
Proprietary concern - Initiation of legal proceedings by
· - Procedure explained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- ss. 190 and 200 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.
138 and 142 - Suit.
Case law reference
D
MMTC Ltd. vs. MEDCHL Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.
2002(1) sec 234- relied on. [para 6]
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand 1998(1)
sec 687- relied on. [para 6]
E
Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
AIR 1967 SC 349 - relied on. [para 10)
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs. State of West Bengal 1973(3)
sec 753- relied on. [para 12]
~
F
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. lndusind Bank Ltd. 2005(2)
sec 217 - relied on. [para 12]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1449 of 2003
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Ap-
peal No. 1737 of 2001
t-
L. Roshmani, (for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.) for the Appellant.
H
Prabhakar Rao Voruganti, D. Bharathi Reddy and M.K.
~ .
..
MIS SHANKAR FINANCE & INVESTMENTS v. STATE OF
907
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. [R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.]
Michael for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
A
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. The complainant in a proceed-
ings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
('Act' for short), challenges in this appeal by special leave, the · B
order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Criminal Petition No.1737 of 2001 holding that the com-
plaint signed by a Power of Attorney holder was not maintain-
able.
2. The appellant - complainant filed a complaint dated C
2.4.1996 against respondents 2 to 4 herein (namely Mis Speci-
ality Aqua Ventures Ltd, its Managing Director and Chairman
arrayed as accused 1, 2 and 3) alleging that a cheque for
Rs.12,40,000/- issued by the third respondent (on behalf of re-
spondents 2 to 4) was dishonoured. Respondents 2 and 4 filed D
an application seeking discharge. The said petition was dis-
missed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 17.12.1998.
The Revision filed by them against the order of the learned
Magistrate was rejected by the Sessions Court on 12.2.2001.
Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein (third accused) filed a E
petition under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings.
The fourth resExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.