C.G. Praveen Vs. Mohd. TajuddIn and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....alongside the workshop and also prescribe a rental charge for such use. the 1992 amendment and the 1994 amendment to the goa, daman and diu ports rules, 1983 which enable the port authorities to levy, charge and recover a fee or charge for using open government riverine land from the person who is permitted to use such government riverine land is within the rule making power of the state, and cannot, therefore, be said to be ultra vires the rules making power under the act. in fact, even without specific rules, the port authorities in exercise of domain over riverine land and the river, could object to or prohibit the the exclusive mooring by vessels which call at the workshop. the port authorities can also enter into an arrangement of lease/licence with the users of such riverine land/demarcated river surface alongside the workshop or establishment......and not the payee himself. the question whether the signing of complaint by the payee himself is sine qua non for taking cognizance of offence under section 138 of the act is no longer res integra. in shankar finance and investments v. state of andhra pradesh and ors. :(2008) 8 scc 536, this court interpreted section 142 of the act and held that a complaint under section 138 can be filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder. in this case, the complaint was filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder. this being the position, the high court was not justified in quashing the prosecution of respondent no. 1.3. accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by respondent no. 1 under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure is dismissed. now, the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.4. as the complaint was filed in 1996, we direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. criminal appeal nos. 813 of 2003, 440 of 2005 and 443 of 2005.5. in view of the order passed in criminal appeal no. 1338 of 2002, these.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2002

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed the prosecution of respondent No. 1 Mohd. Tajuddin under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') only on the ground that the complaint was filed by the power of attorney holder of the payee and not the payee himself. The question whether the signing of complaint by the payee himself is sine qua non for taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Act is no longer res integra. In Shankar Finance and Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. :(2008) 8 SCC 536, this Court interpreted Section 142 of the Act and held that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder. In this case, the complaint was filed by the payee through his power of attorney holder. This being the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the prosecution of respondent No. 1.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed. Now, the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.

4. As the complaint was filed in 1996, we direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. Criminal Appeal Nos. 813 of 2003, 440 of 2005 and 443 of 2005.

5. In view of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2002, these appeals are allowed in the similar terms.