THE HONOURABLE MR v. M/s Jayam Textiles Proprietory concern by its Proprietor Pritam Satheja 18/7, Ginning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 18.06.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.Nos.348 and 410 of 2001M/s Haryana State CooperativeSupply and Marketing Federation Ltd.,Coimbatore by itsPower Holder Devender Kumarlal .. Appellant/Complainant in both appealsvs.1. M/s Jayam Textiles Proprietory concern by its Proprietor Pritam Satheja 18/7, Ginning Factory Road, Singanallur Coimbatore.2. Pritam Satheja Proprietor M/s Jayam Textiles 18/7, Ginning Factory Road, Singanallur Coimbatore .. Respondents in Crl.A.No.348 of 2001 / AccusedM/s Jayam TextilesProprietory concern by itsProprietor Pritam Satheja18/7, Ginning Factory Road,SinganallurCoimbatore... Respondent in Crl.A.No.410 of 2001 /Accused These appeals have been preferred against the order dated07.02.2001, in C.C.No.1377 of 1995 and 1375 of 1995 respectively on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, V,Coimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.N.I.Ishtiaq Ahmed (in both appeals) For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Baalajiin Crl.A.No.410/2001For respondents in Crl.A.No.348/2001 : Notice unserved. C O M M O N J U D G M E N TCrl.A.No.348 of 2001 has been preferred by the complainant, a powerof attorney holder Mr.Devender Kumarlal against the judgment inC.C.No.1377 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V,Comibatore.Crl.A.No.410 of 2001 has been filed by the Power of Attorney holderby name Devender Kumarlal against the Judgment in C.C.No.1375 of 1995 onthe file of Judicial Magistrate NO.V,Coimbatore.2. The short facts of the complaint in both C.C.Nos.1377 of 1995 and1375 of 1995 are that the complainant viz., M/s Haryana State CooperativeSupply and Marketing Federation Ltd., indulged in supply of cotton balesand that accused had purchased cotton bales from the complainant to avalue of Rs.30.45,602/- and to discharge the same, issued two cheques on16.1.1995 for Rs.5,00,000/- and another cheque dated 20.1.1995 forRs.5,00,000/-. When those two cheques were presented to the bank, the samewere returned with an endorsement "for want of sufficient funds" on17.4.1995. A lawyer's notice was sent by the complainant on 19.4.1995giving 15 days time to the accused to repay the cheque amount. The accusedhas received the notice, but not chosen to repay the same.2a. In C.C.No.1375 of 1995, the complainant is M/s Haryana StateCooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., indulged in sale ofcotton bales. The accused had purchased cotton bales to the value ofRs. 30,45,602/- and issued two cheques. One cheque dated 20.1.1995 forRs.11,00,000/- and another cheque dated 25.1.1995 for anotherRs.11,00,000/- for the discharge of the said amount. When those twocheques were presented by the complainant in Punjab National Bank,Coimbatore branch, the same were returned with an endorsement " for wantof sufficient funds" on 17.4.1995. A notice was sent to the accused on27.4.1995 giving 15 days to the accused to pay the cheque amount. In spiteof reply notice, the accused neither chosen to send any reply nor paidthe cheque amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. After taking cognizance of the complaints which were filed underSection 200 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate issued summons tothe accused for appearance. On appearance of the accused, copies underSection 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and when the offencewas explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.4. On the side of the complainant,P.Ws1 to 3 were examined and Exs P1to P13 were marked in both the cases.4a. P.W.1 is the power of attorney holder in both the cases, who hasnarrated what he had stated in the respective complaints. P.W.2 is theManager of Punjab National Bank, Coimbatore wherein the complainant ishaving his account. P.W.3 is the Manager of Canara Bank, Coimbatorewherein the accused is having his account.4b. Exs P5,P6, impugned cheques (in both the cases) were presentedfor encashment to the Canara Bank, Coimbatore branch through PunjabNational Bank, Coimbatore, all the four cheques were returned with anendorsement that the accused has no sufficient funds. After issuingstatutory notice under Section 138 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act1881, under the original of ExP8, (both the cases), the complainant hadpreferred the complaint, since the accused had failed to send neitherreply nor chosen to pay the cheque amount.5. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, hedenied his complicity with the crime( in both the cases).6. The learned Judicial Magistrate NO.V,Coimbatore, on the basis ofthe oral and documentary evidence let in before him, has come to aconclusion that the complaint preferred by the complainant is notmaintainable and accordingly dismissed both the cases. Against thefindings of the learned trial Judge, these appeals have been preferred bythe complainant.7. The only point to be decided in these appeals is whether thecomplainant viz., Devender Kumarlal is competent to file these appealsagainst the accused?8.Heard Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for theappellant in both appeals and Mr.A.S.Baalaji, learned counsel appearingfor respondent in Crl.A.No.410 of 2001 and considered their respectivesubmissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.The point:-Admittedly, the complainant is M/s Haryana State Cooperative Supply andMarketing Federation Ltd.. P.W.1 is the power of Attorney Holder forthe complainant would admit that the Managing Director of the complainantis Naresh Gulati. He would rely on Ex P11 and contend that the ManagingDirector, Naresh Gulati has authorised him to file these complaints onbehalf of M/s Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing FederationLtd.,. Ex P11 is the General Power of Attorney executed by the ManagingDirector Naresh Gulati in favour of Devender Kumarlal, the complainantherein.10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contendthat as per Bye-laws Ex.D.1 Rule 27(xviii) of the complainant, theManaging Director is competent to "sue and be sued in the name and onbehalf of the Federation" and not the complainant Devender Kumarlal and itis in no where stated in the bye-laws, the Managing Director himself canrelegate his power conferred under Rule 27 (xviii) to anyone else, unlessthe Board of Directors by way of resolution authorised the ManagingDirector to relegate to some one his power conferred under Rule 27(xviii)of the Bye-laws. A combined reading of Rules 24, 25 and 26 of the Bye-laws, Ex D1 will go to show that the Managing Director is one of themembers of the Executive Committee and under Rule 25 (xiv) the ExecutiveCommittee is empowered to perform any other duties or exercise any otherpowers which may be assigned to it by the Board of Directors. 11. So, I am of the view that unless the Board of Directorsauthorised the Managing Director to execute the power of Attorney infavour of other person, the Managing Director cannot execute any power ofAttorney relegating his power conferred under Rule 27 of the Bye-laws ExD1 to any other person.12. The learned trial Judge has also taken the same view anddismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint preferred byDevender Kumarlal, claiming that he is the power of attorney holder underEx P11 from the Managing Director cannot maintain the complaint underSection 200 of Cr.P.C.13. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interferewith the well considered order of the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.V,Coimbatore in C.C.Nos.1377/1995 and 1375/1995 respectively. The pointis answered accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. In fine, Crl.A.Nos.348 and 410 of 2001 are dismissed confirmingthe Judgment in C.C.Nos.1377/1995 and 1375/1995 respectively on the fileof Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore.sgSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo, 1. The Judicial Magistrate,No.V, Coimbaotre2.-do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras-104.+2 ccs to Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate Sr.Nos.33507 & 33408.+1 cc to Mr.A.S.Balaji, Advocate Sr.No.35596.RS(CO)dcp/28.06.07Crl.A.Nos.348 & 410 of 2001