LexNATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 83
-t
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.
A
v.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1802 of 2008 etc.)
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
B
!
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 200 Proviso,
Clause (a) - Exemption under - Applicability of - In respect c
of complaint for dishonour of cheque by Government
Company through its officer who is a public servant - Held:
In a case of dishonour of cheque where a company (an
incorporeal body) is the payee, becomes de jure
complainant and the employee representing it becomes a
D
de facto complainant - If the employee-representative is a
public servant, exemption under the provision is applicable
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 142.
Words and Phrases - 'Public Servant' - Meaning of in
E
the context of s.200 Cr.P.C. ands. 21 /PC.
The question for consideration in the present appeal
is where a complaint with regard to dishonour of cheque
t
is made by a Government Company, represented by its
officer who is a public servant, whether the exemption
F
made under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 200
Cr.P.C., is available.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
..
HELD: 1.1. The object of Section 200 Cr.P.C. requiring
G
-+
}
the complainant and witnesses to be examined, is to find
out whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused and to prevent issue of process on
83
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A complaints which are false or vexatious or intended to
harass the persons arrayed as accused. Where the
complainant is a public servant or court, clause (a) of
proviso to Section 200 Cr.P.C. raises an implied statutory
presumption that the complaint has been made
B responsibly and bona fide and not falsely or vexatiously.
On account of such implied presumption, where the
complainant is a public servant, the statute exempts
examination of the complainant and the witnesses, before
issuing process. When an employee of a Government
c company or statutory corporation, who is a public
servant, acts or purports to act in the discharge of his
official duties, it necessarily refers to doing acts done or
duties discharged by such public servant, for and on
behalf of his employer, namely, the Government company/
0 statutory corporation. Any complaint by a public servant
(if he happens to be an employee of a Government
company) acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duties, can only be in regard to the
transactions or affairs of the employer company. [Para 9J
E [93-C-GJ
1.2. In a complaint relating to dishonour of a cheque
(which has not been endorsed by the payee in favour of
anyone), it is the payee alone who can be the
complainant. The requirement of section 142 of
F Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that payee should be
the complainant, is met if the complaint is in the name of
the payee. If the payee is a company, necessarily the
complaint should be filed in the name of the company.
Section 142 of the Act does not specify who should
G representthe company, if a company is the complainant.
A company can be represented by an employee or even
by a non-employee authorized and empowered to
represent the company either by a resolution or by a
power of attorney. [Para 1 OJ [94-D-F; HJ
H
1.3. Section 138 of the Act mandates that payee
,
{
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. v.
85
+
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
alone, whether a corporeal person or incorporeal person,
A
shall be the complainant. Section 200 Cr.P.C.
contemplates only a corporeal person being a
complainant. It mandatorily requires the examination of
the complainant and the sworn statement being signed
by the complainant. If Section 142 of the Act and section
B
200 Cr.P.C. are read literally, the result will be : (a) the
complainant should be the payee of the cheque; and (b)
the complainant should be examined before issuing
process and the complainant's signature should be
obtained on the deposition. Therefore, if the payee is a C
company, an incorporeal body, the said incorporeal body
can alone be the complainant. The mandatory
requirement of Section 200 Cr.P.C. is that a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, shall
examine upon oath the complainant, and that the
substance of such examination reduced to writing shall
D
be signed by the complainant. An incorporeal body can
obvioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.