Ramesh Vs. Ganeshchandra and ors.

Ramesh vs Ganeshchandra and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 27, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511889

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/511889
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.L. Kochar, J.
Decided On: Nov 27, 2003
Case Number: M. Cr. C. No. 2150 of 2003
Subject: Criminal;Banking
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal;Banking
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 200, 202 and 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Advocate Anil Oza, Adv.

Respondent

Ganeshchandra and ors.

Advocate V.P. Saraf, Adv. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 200, 202 and 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138
Cases Referred: Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma
Reported In: IV(2004)BC475

Excerpt

- .....(2002) bc 77 (db)=2002 cr.l.j. 2621 (s.p. sampathy v. smt. manju gupta) on the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant/complainant is that as per the power of attorney act and the judgment rendered by m.p. high court (gwalior bench) in i (2002) bc 113=2001 cr.l.j. 3623, dr. anil kumar and anr. v. sant prakash gupta, the complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instruments action be presented by the person holding power of attorney, payee or the holder of the cheque, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the supreme court judgment rendered in mmtc ltd. and anr. v. medchi chemicals and pharma (p) ltd., viii (2001) slt 83=iv (2001) ccr 316 (sc)=air 2002 sc 182 and submitted that in the case in hand, though the complaint was filed by the holder of power of attorney on behalf of the complainant, but later on this defect has been cured. the complainant himself has appeared and signed on the complaint. this was done in pursuance of the re visional order passed by the lower revisional court. in mmtc ltd. (supra) the supreme court has held that though the complaint was filed on behalf of the company who was the holder of the cheque by unauthorised person, but the same defect is curable and on this account, the complaint cannot be quashed.3. having heard the learned counsels for the parties this court is of the view that in view of the provisions of power of attorney act, the complaint can be presented by the holder of power of attorney, but for the purpose of further prosecution i.e. under section 200 and 202, the presence of the complainant is essential and if he appears and gives statement before the court, then there is no defect in filing the complaint and the same shall be treated as cured.4. in this view of the matter, as discussed above, there is no substance in this petition. the same is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.L. Kochar, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant mainly on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder who is not the payee or holder of cheque in due course. Therefore, the complaint filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on III (2002) BC 77 (DB)=2002 Cr.L.J. 2621 (S.P. Sampathy v. Smt. Manju Gupta) On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/complainant is that as per the Power of Attorney Act and the judgment rendered by M.P. High Court (Gwalior Bench) In I (2002) BC 113=2001 Cr.L.J. 3623, Dr. Anil Kumar and Anr. v. Sant Prakash Gupta, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Action be presented by the person holding power of attorney, payee or the holder of the cheque, Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment rendered in MMTC Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., VIII (2001) SLT 83=IV (2001) CCR 316 (SC)=AIR 2002 SC 182 and submitted that in the case in hand, though the complaint was filed by the holder of power of attorney on behalf of the complainant, but later on this defect has been cured. The complainant himself has appeared and signed on the complaint. This was done in pursuance of the re visional order passed by the lower Revisional Court. In MMTC Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that though the complaint was filed on behalf of the company who was the holder of the cheque by unauthorised person, but the same defect is curable and on this account, the complaint cannot be quashed.

3. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties this Court is of the view that in view of the provisions of Power of Attorney Act, the complaint can be presented by the holder of Power of Attorney, but for the purpose of further prosecution i.e. under Section 200 and 202, the presence of the complainant is essential and if he appears and gives statement before the Court, then there is no defect in filing the complaint and the same shall be treated as cured.

4. In this view of the matter, as discussed above, there is no substance in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Ramesh vs Ganeshchandra and ors. Same Subject Criminal;Banking Same Judge S.L. Kochar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 200, 202 ...

Criminal;Banking