Full Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Jaipac India Limited, a company, represented by the Regional Sales Manager, has filed a complaint against the accused, Nagaraj, the petitioner herein, for the offences under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Before the commencement of the trial, the petitioner filed a petition to discharge the accused, on the ground that the details of the dates with regard to the presentation and the return of the cheque, were not clearly given in the complaint, and that in the name of the regional manager, some other person had been substituted, and that once the cheque was earlier presented, it cannot be represented again.
But considering the contentions raised in the discharge petition, and the counter by the complainant, the learned magistrate dismissed the petition, as there is no merit. This order is challenged in this revision. It transpires from the record, that there are enough details in the complaint, and the authorisation also was filed when the complaint was taken on file. The contention that there cannot be any second presentation would not be valid, in view of the earlier judgments of this court, that the cheque can be presented on any number of occasions, and in respect of the dishonour on the last presentation, the complaint could be maintained.
3. It is also important to note at this stage, in view of the decision in Gopalakrishna Trading Company v. D. Baskaran that the complaint by the company, represented by the manager can be maintained. The following observation is relevant (page 56) :
'The company as such has to be represented by some human agency in preferring a complaint before the court. There is no express or explicit provision in the Act as to in what manner the company is to be represented in preferring a complaint before the court for the alleged infraction or violation of the provisions under section 138 of the Act. The dictates of commonsense, practical wisdom, prudence and expedience impel the court in such a situation to enable the company to present a complaint before the court represented by some person connected with the affairs of the company. The person connected with the affairs of the company in the normal run of things, may be either its manager, partner, managing partner or director or any other person authorised by the company, who can represent it during the course of legal proceedings before the court.'
4. In view of the above observation, I find nothing wrong in the company being represented by the regional sales manager originally, and subsequently, by the office executive, under proper authorisation, who is connected with the affairs of the company. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel, questioning the impugned order cannot have a leg to stand on.
5. In the result, the revision is dismissed, as devoid of merit. Consequently, Crl. M. P. is also dismissed.