A. Krishnan Prop. Kodeeswara Traders 89-A, Ethukapallivagal St, O. Smill, Dindigul vs S.P. Kumar, Manager, Vangili Feeds, Namakkal

The above petition was dismissed on merits on 7.12.2000. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent when he was called on two

occasions, this Court was constrained to dispose of the main petilion after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent.

Some months later, the counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to post the matter for ''Being Mentioned'' , as he can be given an

opportunity to make submissions on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the prayer for quashing the proceedings in question. Accordingly, he

was permitted. The Registry was directed to post this matter for ''Being Mentioned'' .

Mr. Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue at length, contending the following points:-

i) u/s 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the payee is defined as the person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by

the instrument directed to be paid, is called the ""payee"". In this case, payee is the Company in whose name the instrument was drawn. But the

complaint was filed by one S.P.Kumar, the Manager, as the Power Agent for the Company. u/s 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. the

complaint can be filed only by the payee. Therefore, the complaint is not valid.

ii) The cause title in the complaint would show that the Manger of the Company is the complainant. In the absence of any complaint by the

Company, the complaint by the Manager cannot be entertained.

In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite the following judgments:-

(i) B. Mahendra Jain v. C.K. Mohammed Ali, 1997 (2) L.W. (Cri.) 637 (ii) Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (iii) Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Deepak Brothers and Others, (iv) Satish and Company Vs. S.R. Traders and Others, .

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on going through the judgments referred to above by him, I am of the view that the submissions

made by the counsel for the petitioner could not be countenance.

I have specifically observed in my order dated 7.12.2000 that the complaint had been filed on behalf of the Company by the representative of

the Company, Mr.S.P.Kumar, who happens to be the Manager of the Company, as he has got some connection with the affairs of the Company,

by virtue of his designation.

Furthermore, it is an admitted case that both in the complaint and the sworn statement, he has mentioned that the complaint was filed by him in

the capacity of power of attorney given by the Company to him to file the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of the

Company. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the payee is not the complainant. There is no dispute in the fact that the Company is the payee as

defined u/s 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A reading of the cause title, body of the complaint and the sworn statement would make it clear chat the complaint was filed by the Power of

Attorney on behalf of the Company, the payee.

In Satish and Company Vs. S.R. Traders and Others, . the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows:-

a duly authorised agent can file a complaint on behalf of the Corporation since the Corporations are only inanimate legal persons, who necessarily

have to act through such authorised persons. A complaint can be filed by the payee or by the holder in due course or by their duly authorised

officer.

This decision, in my view, would not help in any way the petitioner herein.

Again the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Brothers and Others, held as follows:-

A complaint can be filed by the Director of the Company on behalf of the Company on the basis of the authorisation. This also would show that

the payee can be represented through some other persons viz. Director and Manager with authorisation.

In this case, admittedly, the Manager has filed the complaint on behalf of the Company with the Power of Attorney.

As a matter of fact, this Court in M/s Gopalakrisha Trading Co. v. D.Baskaran, 1992 (1) MWN Crl 236, B. Mahendra Jain v.

C.K.Mohemmed Ali, 1997 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 637 and Sahayadurai and others v. J.D.Electronics, 1991 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 297 held as follows:-

The complaint presenled by the Manager representing the Company is very well connect with the affairs of the Company on whose behalf the

complaint was made is perfectly valid and that it cannot be stated that the Manager representing the Company shall obtain a special permission or

authorisation from the Company did file it along with the complaint.

But this view of this Court has not been accepted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satish and Company Vs. S.R. Traders and Others, .

In that decision, it has been held as follows:-

Even if the Manager filed a complaint on behalf of the Company, the Manager has to obtain authorisation or Power of Attorney and then file it.

I am not agreeable with this view, as the law laid down by this Court earlier in M/s. Gopalaksishma Trading Co. v. D.Baskaran, 1992 (1)

M.W.N. 236 is correct.

However, in the present case, the complaint has been filed on behalf of the Company not only as a Manager, but also on the authorisation

given by both the Managing Partner and the Partner of the Company through the registered Power of Attorney.

Under those circumstances, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would fait. Accordingly, the order dismissing the petition

dated 7.12.2000 is confirmed. Thus, the petition for quashing the proceedings is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is also dismissed.

The trial Court is directed to go on the trial and finish the same expeditiously.