Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by M/s. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. (appellant company) against Mahendra Jain (respondent) under Section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning two dishonoured cheques issued for refund of excess payment made under a contract. The respondent challenged the complaint's maintainability, filing applications alleging that it was not filed by an authorised person and that the power of attorney holder, Kavindersingh Anand, could not depose. The trial court rejected these applications on 30.01.2018 and 23.07.2018, and a criminal revision was dismissed on 26.09.2018. The respondent then invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which set aside the lower courts' orders, holding the complaint was not filed by an authorised person and the power of attorney holder was not authorised to depose. The Supreme Court considered whether the complaint was maintainable and whether the power of attorney holder could legally depose. The appellant argued that the complaint was filed in the company's name through its authorised representative, Ripanjit Singh Kohli, sub-delegated by Kavindersingh Anand under a general power of attorney with a specific clause permitting appointment of special attorneys, and that Anand had personal knowledge of the transactions. The respondent relied on the High Court's reasoning and the precedent in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra. The Court analyzed the power of attorney, noting it was executed after board approval and explicitly authorised the holder to appoint 'counsel' or 'special attorneys' for conducting cases. Interpreting the clauses, the Court found that the language permitted sub-delegation to special attorneys, making the complaint filing through Kohli legal. Regarding deposition, the Court noted Anand's affidavit stating his knowledge as a director and power of attorney holder, holding that he was competent to depose. Applying principles from A.C. Narayanan, the Court concluded the complaint was maintainable and the High Court erred in exercising its inherent powers. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court and revisional court orders.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Exercise of Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - High Court set aside trial court and revisional court orders holding complaint not maintainable due to lack of authority - Supreme Court held High Court erred in interfering as complaint was properly filed through authorised representative with sub-delegation clause - Held that inherent powers should not be exercised to quash proceedings when complaint is legally maintainable (Paras 2, 5, 8, 17). B) Negotiable Instruments Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Maintainability of Complaint - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138, 141, 142 - Complaint filed by company through authorised representative for dishonoured cheques issued for refund of excess payment - Supreme Court applied principles from A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790, and held complaint maintainable as filed in company's name through power of attorney holder with knowledge of transactions - Restored trial court orders rejecting respondent's applications (Paras 3-4, 6-9, 16-18). C) Power of Attorney - Sub-delegation Authority - General Power of Attorney - Not mentioned - General power of attorney executed by company in favour of director authorised appointment of special attorneys - Supreme Court interpreted power of attorney clauses and found specific authorization for sub-delegation to appoint special attorneys for conducting cases - Held that filing complaint through sub-delegated authorised representative was legal (Paras 10-13). D) Evidence Law - Deposition by Power of Attorney Holder - Competence to Testify - Not mentioned - Director holding power of attorney filed affidavit stating personal knowledge of transactions - Supreme Court held High Court erred in ignoring affidavit and that power of attorney holder with due knowledge can depose - Restored trial court's rejection of application challenging his authority to depose (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed through an authorised representative/power of attorney holder is maintainable and whether the power of attorney holder is legally entitled to depose in support of the complaint
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 04.04.2019 and restored the orders of the trial court dated 30.01.2018 and 23.07.2018 and that of the Revisional Court dated 26.09.2018. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Law Points
- Filing of complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 through power of attorney holder is legal if holder has knowledge of transactions
- Power of attorney holder can depose and verify complaint if witnessed transaction
- General power of attorney functions cannot be delegated without specific clause permitting sub-delegation
- Complaint by power of attorney holder on behalf of original complainant is maintainable though not in his own name
