Cheque bounce case -- Maintainability of complaint – Mother of the Applicant-complainant appeared as his general attorney after due permission from the Court on acceptance of her application to permit her to file complaint and pursue the same as attorney -- Maintainability of the complaint is well-proved on the record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Proprietorship firm -- Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- Application for additional witness -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Knowledge -- Complainant himself has not appeared in the witness box and his attorney appeared -- Ld. trial Court held that power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath on behalf of the complainant if he had witnessed the transaction or had knowledge regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused -- Attorney himself admitted in his cross-examination that “It is correct that I have no personal knowledge about the present case” -- No date, month or year of the transaction had been mentioned by the complainant -- No document on record to show the transaction between the parties -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court -- Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is correct as per evidence and law and does not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Power of -- Except mentioning in the cause title there is no mention of, or a reference to the Power of Attorney in the body of the said complaint nor was it exhibited as part of the said complaint -- In the list of evidence there is just a mere mention of the words “Power of Attorney”, however there is no date or any other particulars of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the complaint -- Even in the verification statement, there is not even a whisper that she is filing the complaint as the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant -- Even the order of issue of process does not mention that the Magistrate had perused any Power of Attorney for issuing process – Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the matter and the Court below erred in putting the onus on the appellant rather than the complainant -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Power of -- Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint without prima facie establishing the fact as to whether the Power of Attorney existed in first place and whether it was in order – Complaint against the appellant was not preferred by the payee or the holder in due course and the statement on oath of the person who filed the complaint has also not stated that he filed the complaint having been instructed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque – Held, it was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Complaint was filed by one claiming to be General Power of Attorney of the complainant company – Complaint was not signed either by Managing Director or Director of the Company -- PW-1/R gave evidence on behalf of company who is only the employee of the Company -- As per Resolution of the Company i.e. Ex.P3 Managing Director and Director are 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 appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc. -- But nothing on the record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company -- Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the Company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence -- At best the said persons can nominate any person to represent themselves or the Company before the Court –Employee of the Company signed the complaint and the Deputy General Manager of the Company/ PW-1 gave evidence 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 -- Magistrate rightly acquitted the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Hypothecated vehicle sold by Bank -- Ld. J.M.I.C., while acquitting the accused held that GPA were neither filed in original nor were duly registered, as such were not admissible in evidence – Court also held that when after the sanction of alleged loan, the Bank seized the vehicle and sold the same and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the amount repayable by the accused, then the accused/borrower was not guilty under an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act for dishonour of post dated cheques – Held, findings given by learned JMIC, are correct, as per law and cannot be held as illegal or perverse.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2015