Federation Ltd.,No.20, Huzur Road,Coimbatore by its power of attorney holder Devinder KumarS/o.Kishorilal v. Shree Olive Fabrice, A partnership Firms

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 02.08.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.Nos.668 to 675 of 2001M/s.Haryana State Co-operativeSupply and Marketing Federation Ltd.,No.20, Huzur Road, Coimbatore by its power of attorney holder Devinder KumarS/o.Kishorilal .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.668 to 675 of 2001Vs.

Shree Olive Fabrice, A partnership Firms, rep. by its Partner A.Ravi, No.22, 4th lay-out, Coimbatore-1.

A.Ravi ..Respondents in Crl.A.No.668, 670 & 671 of20011.M/s.Gitangali Mills Ltd., by Director P.R.Ramasubramaniam, Sri. Gomathipuram-post, Post Box No.6, Sankarankoil-627 756, Tirunelveli Kattabomman Dist.2.P.R.Ramsubramaniam, Director, Sri. Gomathipuram-post, Post Box No.6, Sankarankoil-627 756, Tirunelveli Kattabomman Dist. .. Respondents in Crl. As.669 & 672 to 675 of 2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer:- These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated24.4.2001, 7.5.2001, 24.4.2001, 24.4.2001, 7.5.2001, 7.5.2001 & 7.5.2001made in STC.No.1378/95 & C.C.Nos.1410, 1414, 1421, 1424, 1425, 1426 & 1427of 1995 respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V,Coimbatore. For Appellants: Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed (Crl.A.No.668 to 675 of 2001) For Respondents :Mr.V.Sairam (Crl.A.No.668, 670 & 671/2001) In other appeals no one represented the respondentsCOMMON JUDGMENTThe complainant in STC.No.1378/95 & C.C.Nos.1410, 1414, 1421, 1424,1425, 1426 & 1427 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V,Coimbatore, is the appellant in all the above appeals. The complainanthas preferred the private complaint in all the above cases under Section200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act against the accused. 2. Admittedly in the business transaction in connection with cottonbales a sum of Rs.26,99,995/- is due from the respondents inSTC.No.1378/95 & C.C.No.1414 & 1421/95 and the respondents inC.C.Nos.1410, 1424 to 1427 of 1995 owes a sum of Rs.29,18,241 to thecomplainant.

On appearance of the accused, the learned trial judge has furnishedcopies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and when the charges were framed andquestioned the accused pleaded not guilty. P.W.1 & P.W.2 were examinedand Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked on the side of the complainant inC.C.No.1421 & 1414/95 & STC.No.1378/95. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined andEx.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked on the side of the complainant inC.C.No.1410/1995. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 weremarked on the side of the complainant in C.C.No.1424 to 1427 of 1995.

When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny their complicity with thecrime in all the above cases. In STC.No.1378/95 & C.C.Nos.1414 & 1421 of1995 A2-Ravi examined himself as D.W.1 and has marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10 inall the above said three cases. In C.C.No.1410/95 Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 weremarked. In C.C.No.1427/95 Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.2 were marked. In C.C.No.1424to 1426/95 Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 were marked. After going through theavailable evidence both oral and documentary meticulously, the learnedTrial Judge has come to the conclusion that an offence under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted against the accused towarrant conviction and accordingly dismissed all the above said STC & CCcases, which necessitated the complainant to prefer these appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether thejudgment of the trial Court is perverse in nature or full of manifesterror to warrant any interference from this Court?6.Heard Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed appearing for the appellant andMr.V.Sairam appearing for the respondent in Crl.A.No.668, 670 & 671/2001and considered their respective submissions.

The Point:- 7(a) The first ground on which the learned trial judgehas dismissed the complaint is that the power of attorney holder for P.W.1in all the above cases viz. Devendra Kumar is not competent to representP.W.1 and that the deed of power of attorney, on which reliance is placedby P.W.1-Devendra Kumar, is that Ex.P.10-power of attorney inSTC.No.1378/95 & C.C.Nos.1414 & 1421 of 1995 and Ex.P.9 in C.C.Nos.1410,1424, 1425, 1426, 1427 of 1995 are executed by the Managing Director ofM/s.Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., andhe is not competent to execute general power of attorney in favour of Devendra Kumar, P.W.1, in all the cases. At request by this CourtMr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed has produced a judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.348 &410 of 2001 dated 18.6.2001, wherein this Court has held in a similarsituation, the complaint filed by the same complainant through power ofattorney holder Devendra Kumar against different accused, the power ofattorney deed produced by Devendra Kumar in those cases was rejected bythis Court on the ground that the Managing Director is not competent toexecute the power of attorney under Rule 27(xvii) of the Bye-law of thecomplainant's company, unless the Board of Directors by way of resolutionauthorised the Managing Director to relegate to some one his powerconferred under Rule 27(xvii) of the Bye-laws, the power of attorneyholder Devendra Kumar is not competent to file the complaint on behalf ofthe complainant viz.

In fine the appeals are dismissed confirming the judgment of thetrial Court in STC.No.1378/95 & C.C.Nos.1410, 1414, 1421, 1424, 1425,1426 & 1427 of 1995 respectively on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo.V, Coimbatore. sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarssvTo,1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore.2.-do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore District.+ 8 cc to Mr.N.Ishtiaq Ahmed Advocate SR.NO.48112+ 1 cc to Mr.V.Sairam Advocate SR.NO.48286SSV (CO)RD 20.8.07Crl.A.Nos.668 to 675 of 2001