Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that bail application is filed in name of Shilpa Pathak. He has filed an application (I.A.No.29004/2024) for amendment in record. It is submitted that after marriage name of applicant has been changed to Shilpa Dubey, therefore, he wants to correct the cause title.

2. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, application is allowed.

3. Name of applicant is to be treated as Shilpa Pathak @ Shilpa Dubey.

4. This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.523/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 294, 506, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case diary is available.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2024 registered at Police Station Dharkundi,, District Satna for offence under Sections 406, 06, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that applicant has filed a Writ Petition No.23452/2024 for transfer of investigation to another Investigating Agency and in that case by order dated 22.08.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023 (439 of Cr.P.C.). for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 140/2020 registered at Police Station S.T.F, District Bhopal for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 25/07/2024 Prosecution story, in short, is that complaint was lodged by one Bharat Singh, who is the President of Dilip Buildcon Limited stating that cheque bearing No. 235994 amounting to Rs.4,200/- has been made and amount of Rs.8,84,62,302/- has been cloned on the aforesaid cheque. The said cheque was submitted for clearance on 02/03/2020 before Punjab National Bank Branch Bandra Mumbai (Maharashtra), where the aforesaid cheque has already been cleared on 20/08/2020 for the said amount of Rs.4,200/-issued in the name of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55317 2 MCRC-46936-2024 Subbavarapu Satyanarayan. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, case has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.

IA No. 23672 of 2024, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Shri Aditya Ghuraiya, learned counsel appearing for complainant along with his associates is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.

This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.146 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC.

The appeal was heard on admission and reserved on 25/09/2024.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28/10/2021 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No.43/2016 [Bisan Lal Vs. Rajau and another] arising out of judgment and decree dated 29/06/2016 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II, Nainpur in Civil Suit No.24-A/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments on admission it was argued that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that Tahsildar Nainpur under the provision of Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has passed the order in favour of the appellant. In First Appeal, certain documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were produced but they were not taken on record. One registered sale deed was also produced.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.458/2023 registered at Police Station- Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioners is that on account of old enmity, they came together and petitioner Daulat fired a gunshot with pistol on the complainant while he was drinking beer in his car but the bullet hit the back gate of the car.

This petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, has been filed for quashing the FIR on the ground of compromise in connection with Crime No.416/2011 registered at Police Station- Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2 . Allegation against the petitioner is that he along-with other co- accused on the basis of forged power of attorney sold the plot to the complainant.

3. I.A.No.21627/2024 and I.A. No.21628/2024, applications for compromise have been filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 duly supported by their affidavits.

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.55/2020 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District - Indore for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and final report dated 21.04.2020 and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.

2 W.P. No.10021-2024

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025.

7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011. 7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case.

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC.

~~~~~~~~~ The petitioners are depositors of the Kadanad Service Co-operative Bank Limited. Respondents 2 and 3 were the former President and Vice President of the Bank. Respondents 4 to 13 were former Committee Members. The 1 st respondent is the Secretary of the Bank.

2. The petitioners state that though the Fixed Deposits of the petitioners are matured long back, those deposits are not paid back. Respondents 1 to 13 committed grave offences. They cheated the Banks and its depositors. Huge loans were given to their own men creating false records and documents. Those loans are now irrecoverable. Ext.P1 inquiry report under 2024:KER:82916 Section 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 would prove the misappropriation and forgery.

Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all proceedings against them.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 8 in S.C.No.1346/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1593/2018 of Poojappura Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 294(b), 506(ii), 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 03.09.2018, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly after abusing the defacto complainant and the third respondent, assaulted them, inflicted grievous injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 The petitioner, an Inspector attached to the Parassala Police Station, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, was the sole accused in V.C.No.2/2015 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (V.A.C.B.), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which accepted the refer report preferred in the Vigilance Case above-referred, but directed an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

[WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows;

-----------------------------------------------------------

and

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 JUDGMENT/ORDER P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

W.P.(C)No.30142 of 2023: Travancore Devaswom Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent Inspector General of Registration to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 complaint dated 20.02.2023 made by the Devaswom Commissioner demanding cancellation of registration of deed No.1715/2015 with regard to the property having an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.200/20 in Karode Village. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs.

‭ 1‬ ‭ ‭.R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN RAO‬ P PARTNER, M/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, WOODLAND JUNCTION,‬ ‭ M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16.‬ ‭ 2‬ ‭ ‭/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS,‬ M KOCHI-16.‬ ‭ 3‬ ‭ ‭TATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY‬ S THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,‬ ‭ ERNAKULAM.‬ ‭ ‭1 & R2 BY ADVS.‬ R SRI.JOHN BRITTO‬ ‭ SRI.C.A.RAJEEV‬ ‭ R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA C.‬ ‭ THIS‬‭ ‭ CRIMINAL‬‭ APPEAL‬‭HAVING‬‭ BEEN‬‭ FINALLY‬‭ HEARD‬‭ ON‬‭ 30.10.2024,‬ THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:‬ ‭ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 2‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"CR"‬ ‭J U D G M E N T‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭in‬ ‭CC‬ ‭No.238‬ ‭of‬ ‭2002‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭file‬ ‭of‬ ‭Additional‬ ‭Chief‬ ‭Judicial‬ ‭Magistrate,‬ ‭Ernakulam,‬ ‭filed‬ ‭this‬ ‭appeal‬ ‭challenging‬ ‭acquittal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬ ‭Instruments‬ ‭Act‬ ‭(hereinafter‬ ‭referred‬ ‭as 'the NI Act'), as per judgment dated 31.05.2007.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭M/s.Sree‬ ‭Gokulam‬ ‭Chit‬ ‭&‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Company,‬‭is‬‭a‬‭Private‬‭Limited‬‭company‬‭having‬‭its‬‭registered‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭Chennai‬ ‭and‬ ‭a‬ ‭branch‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭MG‬ ‭Road,‬ ‭Ernakulam.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭represented‬ ‭by‬ ‭its‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭holder,‬ ‭who‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭company.‬‭He‬‭is‬‭empowered‬‭to‬‭institute‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭The‬ ‭2nd‬ ‭accused‬ ‭is‬ ‭M/s.Woodlands‬ ‭Jewellers‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬‭1st‬‭accused‬‭is‬‭its‬‭partner.‬‭Rs.2,13,000/-‬‭was‬‭due‬‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭towards‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭of‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭transactions,‬ ‭which‬‭the‬‭2nd‬‭accused‬‭had‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant-company.‬ ‭Towards‬ ‭discharge‬‭of‬‭that‬‭debt,‬‭the‬‭1st‬‭accused‬‭issued‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.12.2001,‬ ‭assuring‬ ‭that,‬ ‭it‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭encashed‬ ‭on‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 3‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭presentation‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭Bank.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭presented‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭for‬ ‭collection‬ ‭but‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason,‬ ‭'A/c‬ ‭transferred‬ ‭to‬ ‭suit‬ ‭file.‬ ‭No‬ ‭Balance.',‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭Ext.P3‬ ‭memo.‬ ‭Complainant‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭registered‬ ‭lawyer‬ ‭notice‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭and‬ ‭in‬‭spite‬‭of‬‭receipt‬‭of‬‭notice,‬‭they‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭repay‬ ‭that‬ ‭amount,‬ ‭though‬ ‭a‬ ‭reply‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭with‬ ‭untenable contentions. Hence the complaint.‬ ‭3.‬ ‭After‬ ‭taking‬ ‭cognizance‬ ‭and‬ ‭on‬ ‭appearance‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court,‬ ‭particulars‬ ‭of‬ ‭offence‬ ‭were‬ ‭read‬ ‭over‬ ‭and‬ ‭explained,‬ ‭to‬ ‭which,‬ ‭they‬ ‭pleaded‬ ‭not‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭and‬‭claimed‬‭to‬‭be‬‭tried.‬‭Thereupon,‬‭PW1‬‭was‬‭examined‬‭and‬ ‭Exts.‬‭P1‬‭to‬‭P10‬‭and‬‭P10(a)‬‭were‬‭marked‬‭from‬‭the‬‭side‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭complainant.‬ ‭On‬ ‭closure‬ ‭of‬ ‭complainant's‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭were‬ ‭questioned‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭313‬ ‭of‬ ‭Cr.P.C.‬ ‭They‬ ‭denied‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭incriminating‬ ‭circumstances‬ ‭brought‬ ‭out‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭and‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭them,‬ ‭they‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭chitty‬ ‭conducted‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭terminated‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1998.‬ ‭They‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭amount‬ ‭due,‬ ‭and‬ ‭thereafter‬ ‭their‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭closed.‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 4‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭given‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭one,‬ ‭only‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security,‬ ‭when‬ ‭he‬ ‭bid‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty.‬ ‭After‬ ‭closing‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty,‬‭the‬‭accused‬ ‭demanded‬ ‭back‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭given‬ ‭as‬ ‭security,‬ ‭but‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭returned,‬ ‭saying‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭kept‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭head‬‭office‬ ‭at Madras. No defence evidence was adduced.‬ ‭4.‬‭On‬‭analysing‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭evidence,‬‭and‬‭on‬‭hearing‬ ‭the‬ ‭rival‬ ‭contentions‬ ‭from‬ ‭either‬ ‭side,‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭acquitted‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭finding‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭properly‬ ‭instituted,‬ ‭as‬ ‭PW1-Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭properly‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭or‬‭to‬‭give‬‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭failed‬ ‭to‬ ‭prove‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭Aggrieved‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭acquittal‬ ‭of‬ ‭the accused, the complainant has preferred this appeal.‬ ‭5.‬ ‭Heard‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬‭appellant‬‭and‬‭learned‬ ‭counsel for the respondents.‬ ‭6.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭since‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭Private‬ ‭Limited‬ ‭company,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭an‬ ‭incorporeal‬ ‭body,‬ ‭only‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee‬ ‭or‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 5‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭representative‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company‬‭can‬‭prefer‬‭the‬‭complaint.‬‭The‬ ‭company‬ ‭becomes‬ ‭a‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭and‬ ‭its‬ ‭employee‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭representative‬ ‭representing‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬‭proceedings‬‭becomes‬‭the‬‭de‬‭facto‬‭complainant.‬‭In‬‭a‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭with‬ ‭regard‬ ‭to‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭issued‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭purpose‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭142‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭will‬ ‭be‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭and‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭purpose‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭200‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Criminal‬ ‭Procedure‬ ‭Code,‬ ‭its‬ ‭employee,‬‭who‬‭represents‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭will‬‭be‬‭the‬‭de‬‭facto‬ ‭complainant.‬ ‭A‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭be‬ ‭represented‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee,‬ ‭or‬ ‭even‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭non-employee‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭and‬ ‭empowered,‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭or‬ ‭a‬ ‭power of attorney.‬ ‭7.‬ ‭According‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭empowered‬ ‭PW1-Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan,‬ ‭who‬ ‭was‬ ‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭extract‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭of‬ ‭Directors‬ ‭meeting,‬ ‭held‬ ‭on‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭at‬ ‭its‬ ‭corporate‬ ‭office‬ ‭at‬ ‭Chennai,‬ ‭which‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 6‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭authorised‬‭the‬‭Assistant‬‭Manager‬‭Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan,‬‭to‬‭do‬‭the‬ ‭following acts:‬ ‭'‭(‬ 1)‬ ‭To‬‭institute,‬‭commence,‬‭prosecute,‬‭carry‬‭on‬‭or‬ ‭defend any suit or legal proceeding,‬ ‭(2)‬‭To‬‭sign‬‭and‬‭verify‬‭all‬‭plaints,‬‭written‬‭statements‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭pleadings,‬ ‭applications,‬ ‭affidavits,‬ ‭petitions‬ ‭or‬ ‭documents‬ ‭and‬ ‭produce‬ ‭them‬ ‭before any Court,‬ ‭(3)‬ ‭To‬ ‭appoint,‬ ‭engage‬ ‭and‬ ‭instruct‬ ‭any‬ ‭solicitor,‬ ‭Advocate‬ ‭or‬ ‭Advocates‬ ‭to‬ ‭act‬ ‭and‬ ‭plead‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭wise‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭sign‬ ‭any‬ ‭Vakalathnama‬ ‭or‬ ‭other authority in this regard,‬ ‭(4)‬ ‭To‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭in‬ ‭any Court of law, and‬ ‭(5)‬ ‭To‬ ‭do‬ ‭all‬ ‭other‬ ‭lawful‬ ‭acts,‬‭deeds‬‭and‬‭things‬‭in‬ ‭connection‬‭with‬‭filing‬‭of‬‭any‬‭suit‬‭and‬‭conducting‬ ‭any‬‭legal‬‭proceedings‬‭in‬‭any‬‭court‬‭of‬‭law‬‭and‬‭to‬ ‭withdraw the case on behalf of the Company.'‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 7‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭8.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭1‬ ‭and‬ ‭2‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬‭that,‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭is‬‭not‬‭admissible‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭has‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬‭proved‬‭by‬‭producing‬ ‭the‬‭original.‬‭He‬‭would‬‭rely‬‭on‬‭a‬‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬‭High‬‭Court‬‭of‬ ‭Judicature‬ ‭at‬ ‭Bombay‬ ‭in‬ ‭Ashish‬ ‭C.‬ ‭Shah‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭Sheth‬ ‭Developers‬‭Pvt.‬‭Ltd.‬‭&‬‭Others‬‭reported‬‭in‬‭[CDJ‬‭2011‬‭BHC‬ ‭339:‬‭2011‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭6506]‬‭,‬ ‭to‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Section‬ ‭194‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭of‬ ‭meetings‬ ‭kept‬ ‭in‬ ‭accordance‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭provisions‬ ‭of‬ ‭Section‬ ‭193,‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings‬ ‭recorded‬ ‭therein.‬ ‭No‬ ‭provision‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭Companies‬‭Act‬‭was‬‭brought‬‭to‬‭the‬‭notice‬‭of‬‭that‬‭court‬ ‭which‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭certified‬‭copy‬‭or‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭admissible‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭without‬ ‭proof‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭original.‬ ‭Section‬ ‭65(f)‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭that,‬ ‭secondary‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭given,‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭existence,‬ ‭condition‬‭and‬‭contents‬‭of‬‭the‬‭document,‬‭when‬‭the‬‭original‬‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭document,‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭a‬ ‭certified‬ ‭copy‬ ‭is‬ ‭permitted‬ ‭by‬‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭or‬ ‭by‬ ‭any‬ ‭other‬ ‭law‬ ‭in‬ ‭force‬ ‭in‬ ‭India,‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭given‬ ‭in‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭He‬ ‭would‬ ‭rely‬ ‭on‬ ‭another‬ ‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 8‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭Delhi‬ ‭High‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭Escorts‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬‭Sai‬‭Autos‬‭and‬‭Others‬ ‭[1991‬ ‭Company‬ ‭Cases‬ ‭Volume‬ ‭72‬ ‭Page‬ ‭483]‬ ‭to‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭enough‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭book,‬ ‭containing‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭relied‬‭on,‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭brought to the court.‬ ‭9.‬ ‭Section‬ ‭119‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭2013‬ ‭which‬ ‭corresponds‬‭to‬‭Section‬‭196‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Companies‬‭Act,‬‭1956‬‭says‬ ‭that,‬‭the‬‭books‬‭containing‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭of‬‭the‬‭proceedings‬‭of‬ ‭any‬ ‭general‬‭meeting‬‭of‬‭a‬‭company‬‭or‬‭of‬‭a‬‭resolution‬‭passed‬ ‭by‬ ‭postal‬ ‭ballot‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭kept‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭registered‬ ‭office‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬‭and‬‭it‬‭shall‬‭be‬‭open‬‭for‬‭inspection‬‭by‬‭any‬‭member‬ ‭during‬ ‭business‬ ‭hours‬ ‭and‬ ‭if‬ ‭any‬ ‭member‬ ‭make‬ ‭a‬ ‭request,‬ ‭for‬ ‭a‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬‭it‬‭shall‬‭be‬‭furnished‬‭within‬‭seven‬ ‭days,‬ ‭on‬‭payment‬‭of‬‭prescribed‬‭fees.‬‭So,‬‭Section‬‭119‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act‬ ‭provides‬ ‭for‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes,‬ ‭and‬ ‭moreover,‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬‭that,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭every‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭sent‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Registrar‬ ‭for‬ ‭recording‬ ‭the‬ ‭same‬ ‭within‬ ‭30‬ ‭days‬ ‭of‬ ‭passing‬ ‭the‬ ‭same.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭Section‬ ‭54‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Companies‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭1956,‬ ‭a‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 9‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭document‬ ‭which‬ ‭requires‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭signed‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬‭director,‬‭the‬‭manager,‬‭the‬‭secretary‬‭or‬‭other‬ ‭authorised‬‭officer‬‭of‬‭the‬‭company,‬‭and‬‭need‬‭not‬‭be‬‭under‬‭its‬ ‭common‬ ‭seal.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭according‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬ ‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes,‬‭which‬‭contains‬‭the‬‭resolution‬‭authorising‬‭the‬ ‭Assistant‬ ‭Manager‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭or‬ ‭civil‬ ‭cases‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬‭etc.,‬‭signed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭director‬‭of‬‭Sree‬‭Gokulam‬‭Chit‬‭&‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Co.‬‭(P)‬‭Ltd.,‬‭was‬‭sufficient‬‭authority‬‭for‬‭PW1,‬‭to‬‭file‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence,‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭10.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭point‬ ‭out‬‭that,‬‭Ext.‬‭P8‬‭was‬‭not‬‭produced‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭complaint,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭produced‬ ‭subsequently‬ ‭after‬ ‭questioning‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭313‬‭of‬‭Cr.P.C.‬‭Relying‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬ ‭M.‬ ‭M.‬ ‭T.‬ ‭C.‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Medchil‬ ‭Chemicals‬ ‭And‬ ‭Pharma‬ ‭(P)‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭[2002‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭241],‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭contended‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority‬ ‭initially,‬ ‭still‬ ‭the‬‭company‬‭can‬‭rectify‬‭that‬‭defect,‬‭at‬‭any‬‭stage.‬‭In‬‭para‬‭12‬ ‭of that judgment, we read thus:‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 10‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭is‬ ‭made‬‭in‬‭the‬ ‭name‬ ‭of‬ ‭an‬ ‭incorporeal‬ ‭person‬ ‭(like‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭or‬ ‭corporation)‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭necessary‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭natural‬ ‭person‬ ‭represents‬‭such‬‭juristic‬‭person‬‭in‬‭the‬‭court.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭court‬ ‭looks‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭natural‬ ‭person‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭for‬ ‭all‬ ‭practical‬ ‭purposes.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭body‬ ‭corporate‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭must‬ ‭necessarily‬ ‭associate‬ ‭a‬ ‭human‬ ‭being‬ ‭as‬ ‭de‬‭facto‬‭complainant‬‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭former‬ ‭in‬ ‭court‬ ‭proceedings.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭further‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬‭no‬‭Magistrate‬‭shall‬‭insist‬‭that‬ ‭the‬‭particular‬‭person,‬‭whose‬‭statement‬‭was‬‭taken‬‭on‬ ‭oath‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭instance,‬ ‭alone‬ ‭can‬ ‭continue‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭till‬ ‭the‬ ‭end‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭proceedings.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭there‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭occasions‬ ‭when‬ ‭different‬ ‭persons‬ ‭can‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭It‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭held‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭open‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭de‬ ‭jure‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭company‬‭to‬‭seek‬‭permission‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭court‬ ‭for‬ ‭sending‬ ‭any‬ ‭other‬ ‭person‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭court.‬ ‭Thus,‬ ‭even‬ ‭presuming,‬ ‭that‬ ‭initially‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority,‬ ‭still‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can,‬ ‭at‬ ‭any‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭rectify‬ ‭that‬ ‭defect.‬ ‭At‬ ‭a‬ ‭subsequent‬ ‭stage‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭send‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭who‬ ‭is‬ ‭competent‬ ‭to‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭The‬ ‭complaints‬‭could‬‭thus‬‭not‬‭have‬‭been‬‭quashed‬‭on‬‭this‬ ‭ground."‬ ‭11.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭decision,‬ ‭Bhupesh‬ ‭Rathod‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Dayashankar‬ ‭Prasad‬ ‭Chaurasia‬ ‭and‬ ‭Another‬‭[‭2 ‬ 021‬ ‭(6)‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 11‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭KHC‬ ‭368],‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭was‬ ‭no‬ ‭authority‬ ‭initially,‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭can‬ ‭at‬ ‭any‬ ‭stage‬ ‭rectify‬ ‭that‬ ‭defect‬ ‭by‬ ‭sending‬ ‭a‬ ‭competent‬ ‭person.‬ ‭In‬ ‭that‬ ‭case,‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭was‬ ‭filed‬ ‭along‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint.‬ ‭An‬ ‭affidavit‬ ‭was‬ ‭brought‬ ‭on‬ ‭record‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭affirming‬ ‭the‬ ‭factum‬ ‭of‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Managing‬ ‭Director.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭accepted‬ ‭the‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution,‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director‬ ‭was‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭attend‬ ‭all‬ ‭such‬ ‭affairs‬ ‭which‬ ‭may‬‭be‬‭needed‬‭in‬‭the‬‭process‬‭of‬‭legal‬ ‭actions. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that judgment read thus:‬ ‭"‭2 ‬ 3.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭also‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭to‬ ‭note‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭Resolution‬‭was‬‭filed‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭complaint.‬‭An‬‭affidavit‬ ‭had‬ ‭been‬ ‭brought‬ ‭on‬ ‭record‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭Trial‬ ‭Court‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company,‬ ‭affirming‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭factum‬ ‭of‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director.‬‭A‬‭Manager‬‭or‬‭a‬‭Managing‬ ‭Director‬‭ordinarily‬‭by‬‭the‬‭very‬‭nomenclature‬‭can‬‭be‬‭taken‬ ‭to‬‭be‬‭the‬‭person‬‭in‬‭-‬‭charge‬‭of‬‭the‬‭affairs‬‭Company‬‭for‬‭its‬ ‭day‬ ‭-‬ ‭to‬ ‭-‬ ‭day‬‭management‬‭and‬‭within‬‭the‬‭activity‬‭would‬ ‭certainly‬‭be‬‭calling‬‭the‬‭act‬‭of‬‭approaching‬‭the‬‭Court‬‭either‬ ‭under‬ ‭civil‬ ‭law‬ ‭or‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭law‬ ‭for‬ ‭setting‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭in‬ ‭motion‬ ‭(Credential‬ ‭Finance‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭v.‬ ‭State‬ ‭of‬ ‭Maharashtra,‬ ‭1998‬‭(3)‬‭Mah‬‭L J‬‭805).‬‭It‬‭would‬‭be‬‭too‬‭technical‬‭a‬‭view‬‭to‬ ‭take‬ ‭to‬ ‭defeat‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭merely‬ ‭because‬ ‭the‬ ‭body‬‭of‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 12‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭does‬ ‭not‬ ‭elaborate‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation.‬ ‭The‬ ‭artificial‬ ‭person‬ ‭being‬ ‭the‬ ‭Company‬ ‭had‬ ‭to‬ ‭act‬ ‭through‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭/‬ ‭official,‬ ‭which‬ ‭logically‬ ‭would‬ ‭include‬ ‭the‬ ‭Chairman‬ ‭or‬ ‭Managing‬‭Director.‬‭Only‬‭the‬‭existence‬‭of‬ ‭authorisation could be verified.‬ ‭24.‬‭While‬‭we‬‭turn‬‭to‬‭the‬‭authorisation‬‭in‬‭the‬‭present‬‭case,‬ ‭it‬‭was‬‭a‬‭copy‬‭and,‬‭thus,‬‭does‬‭not‬‭have‬‭to‬‭be‬‭signed‬‭by‬‭the‬ ‭Board‬‭Members,‬‭as‬‭that‬‭would‬‭form‬‭a‬‭part‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Board‬ ‭meeting‬ ‭and‬ ‭not‬ ‭a‬ ‭true‬ ‭copy‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation.‬ ‭We‬ ‭also‬ ‭feel‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭wrongly‬ ‭concluded‬‭that‬‭the‬‭Managing‬‭Director‬‭was‬‭not‬‭authorised.‬ ‭If‬ ‭we‬ ‭peruse‬ ‭the‬ ‭authorisation‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭form‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭certified‬ ‭copy‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Resolution,‬‭it‬‭states‬‭that‬‭legal‬‭action‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭taken‬ ‭against‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭for‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭cheques‬ ‭issued‬ ‭by‬ ‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭his‬ ‭liabilities‬‭to‬‭the‬‭Company.‬ ‭To‬ ‭this‬ ‭effect,‬ ‭Mr.‬ ‭Bhupesh‬ ‭Rathod‬ ‭/‬ ‭Sashikant‬ ‭Ganekar‬ ‭were‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭to‬ ‭appoint‬ ‭advocates,‬ ‭issue‬ ‭notices‬ ‭through‬ ‭advocate,‬ ‭file‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭verifications‬ ‭on‬ ‭oath,‬ ‭appoint‬‭Constituent‬‭attorney‬‭to‬‭file‬‭complaint‬‭in‬‭the‬‭Court‬ ‭and‬ ‭attend‬ ‭all‬ ‭such‬ ‭affairs‬ ‭which‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭needed‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭process of legal actions. What more could be said?"‬ ‭12.‬ ‭Obviously‬ ‭Hon'ble‬‭Apex‬‭Court‬‭accepted‬‭copy‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭resolution‬‭to‬‭find‬‭the‬‭factum‬‭of‬‭authorisation‬‭in‬‭favour‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭Managing Director.‬ ‭13.‬‭In‬‭the‬‭case‬‭on‬‭hand,‬‭PW1-Assistant‬‭Manager‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭complainant-company‬‭filed‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭and‬‭gave‬‭evidence‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 13‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭minutes‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬ ‭of‬ ‭directors‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭do‬ ‭so.‬ ‭The‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭only‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭the‬‭minutes‬‭book‬‭was‬‭produced,‬ ‭without‬ ‭producing‬ ‭the‬ ‭original,‬ ‭or‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭was‬‭produced‬ ‭at‬ ‭a‬ ‭belated‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭etc.,‬ ‭will‬ ‭not‬ ‭take‬ ‭away‬ ‭that‬ ‭right‬ ‭from‬ ‭him.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭he‬ ‭could‬ ‭have‬ ‭filed‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭given‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭also‬ ‭on‬ ‭behalf‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭strength‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭board‬‭of‬‭directors,‬‭an‬‭extract‬‭of‬‭which‬ ‭was produced as Ext.P8.‬ ‭14.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭would‬‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭executed‬ ‭or‬ ‭authenticated‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬‭Notary‬‭Public‬‭and‬‭so,‬‭it‬‭could‬‭not‬‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭accepted‬ ‭to‬ ‭draw‬ ‭power‬ ‭for‬ ‭PW1,‬ ‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬ ‭or‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭According‬ ‭to‬ ‭him,‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬ ‭ingredients‬ ‭contained‬ ‭in‬ ‭Section‬ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭viz.‬ ‭execution‬ ‭before‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public‬ ‭are‬ ‭very‬ ‭essential.‬ ‭The‬ ‭words‬ ‭'executed‬ ‭before',‬ ‭and‬ ‭'authenticated‬ ‭by',‬ ‭are‬ ‭the‬ ‭two‬ ‭conditions‬‭to‬‭be‬ ‭satisfied‬ ‭in‬ ‭order‬ ‭to‬ ‭attract‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 14‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act.‬‭He‬‭would‬‭rely‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬‭Bank‬ ‭of‬ ‭India‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭Allibhoy‬ ‭Mohammed‬ ‭and‬ ‭Others‬ ‭reported‬ ‭in‬ ‭[‬‭AIR‬ ‭2008‬ ‭BOMBAY‬ ‭81],‬ ‭to‬ ‭support‬ ‭his‬ ‭argument‬‭.‬‭In‬‭paragraph 18 of that judgment, we read thus:‬ ‭"18.‬ ‭Let‬ ‭me‬ ‭turn‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭Legal‬ ‭Provisions;‬ ‭namely,‬ ‭Section‬ ‭85‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Evidence‬ ‭Act‬ ‭which‬ ‭lays‬ ‭down‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭shall‬ ‭presume‬ ‭due‬ ‭execution‬ ‭and‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭of‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭when‬ ‭executed‬ ‭before,‬ ‭and‬ ‭authenticated‬ ‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭or‬ ‭any‬ ‭Court,‬ ‭Judge,‬ ‭Magistrate,‬ ‭Indian‬ ‭Counsel‬ ‭or‬ ‭it's‬ ‭Vice‬ ‭Counsel‬ ‭or‬ ‭representative‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬‭Central‬‭Government,‬ ‭etc.‬ ‭This‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭is‬ ‭available‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬‭Power‬‭of‬‭Attorney‬‭holder‬‭provided‬‭mandate‬‭of‬ ‭Section 85 is duly followed."‬ ‭15.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭though‬ ‭the‬ ‭original‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬‭is‬‭produced‬‭and‬‭marked‬‭as‬‭Ext.P9,‬‭it‬‭does‬‭not‬‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭executed‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭in‬ ‭presence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭and‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭no‬ ‭authentication‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭Notary‬ ‭Public,‬ ‭that‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭executed‬ ‭before‬ ‭her.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭some‬ ‭force‬‭in‬‭the‬‭argument‬‭put‬‭forward‬‭by‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭accepted,‬‭for‬‭want‬‭of‬‭proper‬‭execution‬‭and‬‭authentication‬‭as‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 15‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭envisaged under Section 85 of the Evidence Act.‬ ‭16.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that,‬‭even‬‭if‬‭the‬‭power‬‭of‬‭attorney‬‭is‬‭ignored,‬‭then‬‭also,‬‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭is‬ ‭filed‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭and‬ ‭he‬ ‭was‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭as‬ ‭per‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭the‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭marked‬ ‭as‬ ‭Ext.P8.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭view‬ ‭that,‬ ‭though‬ ‭Ext.P9‬ ‭power‬ ‭of‬ ‭attorney‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭accepted,‬ ‭being‬ ‭the‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭authorised‬ ‭by‬ ‭board‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.09.2000,‬ ‭PW1‬ ‭was‬ ‭empowered to file the complaint and to give evidence.‬ ‭17.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭appellant‬‭would‬‭say‬‭that,‬‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭was‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭authority‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭complainant‬ ‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬‭or‬‭to‬‭give‬‭evidence,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭open‬‭for‬‭him‬ ‭to‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭and‬‭establish‬‭the‬‭same‬‭during‬‭the‬‭course‬‭of‬‭trial.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭TRL‬ ‭Krosaki‬ ‭Refractories‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭(M/s.)‬ ‭v.‬ ‭M/s.‬ ‭SMS‬ ‭Asia‬ ‭Pvt.‬ ‭Ltd.‬ ‭and‬ ‭Another‬ ‭[2022‬ ‭(2)‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭157:‬‭2022‬ ‭(1)‬ ‭KLT‬ ‭OnLine‬ ‭1043‬ ‭(SC)]‬ ‭made‬ ‭that‬ ‭position‬ ‭clear,‬ ‭by‬ ‭holding‬ ‭that,‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬‭complainant/payee‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭an‬ ‭authorized‬ ‭employee‬ ‭can‬ ‭represent‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 16‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭company.‬ ‭Such‬ ‭averment‬ ‭and‬ ‭prima‬ ‭facie‬ ‭material‬ ‭is‬ ‭sufficient‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭learned‬ ‭Magistrate‬ ‭to‬ ‭take‬ ‭cognizance‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭issue‬ ‭process.‬ ‭If‬ ‭at‬ ‭all‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭any‬ ‭serious‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭with‬ ‭regard‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭prosecuting‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭not‬ ‭being‬ ‭authorized,‬ ‭or‬ ‭if‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬‭demonstrated‬‭that‬‭a‬‭person‬‭who‬ ‭filed‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭has‬ ‭no‬‭knowledge‬‭of‬‭the‬‭transaction‬‭and‬ ‭as‬‭such‬‭that‬‭person‬‭could‬‭not‬‭have‬‭instituted‬‭and‬‭prosecuted‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭it‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭open‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭to‬ ‭dispute‬ ‭the‬‭position‬‭and‬‭establish‬‭the‬‭same‬‭during‬‭the‬‭course‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭trial.‬ ‭18.‬ ‭Though‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭authority‬ ‭of‬ ‭PW1,‬ ‭vide‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬‭as‬‭Ext.P9‬‭power‬‭of‬‭attorney,‬‭they‬‭did‬‭not‬‭take‬‭any‬‭steps‬ ‭to‬ ‭establish‬ ‭that‬ ‭position,‬ ‭during‬ ‭trial.‬‭So,‬‭the‬‭finding‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭trial‬‭court,‬‭that‬‭PW1‬‭was‬‭not‬‭authorized‬‭to‬‭file‬‭the‬‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭basis‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P8‬ ‭extract‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution, is liable to be set aside.‬ ‭19.‬‭Coming‬‭to‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭of‬‭the‬‭case,‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬ ‭the‬‭appellant‬‭would‬‭submit‬‭that,‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭subscribed‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 17‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭seven‬ ‭kuries‬ ‭of‬ ‭Rs.5,00,000/-‬ ‭each,‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭company,‬ ‭and‬‭they‬‭auctioned‬‭that‬‭kuri‬‭on‬‭14.02.1997.‬‭They‬ ‭defaulted‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭and‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭liability,‬ ‭the‬ ‭1st‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭issued‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭dated‬ ‭14.12.2001‬ ‭for‬ ‭an‬ ‭amount‬ ‭of‬ ‭Rs.2,13,000/-.‬ ‭When‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭presented‬ ‭before‬ ‭Bank,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭returned‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason‬ ‭'A/c‬ ‭transferred‬ ‭to‬ ‭suit‬ ‭file.‬ ‭No‬ ‭balance.'‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭signature‬‭in‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭or‬‭the‬‭issuance‬‭of‬‭that‬‭cheque‬‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant.‬ ‭All‬ ‭statutory‬ ‭formalities‬ ‭to‬ ‭bring‬ ‭home‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭punishable‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act‬ ‭was‬ ‭complied‬ ‭with.‬ ‭Moreover,‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumptions‬ ‭available‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭118‬ ‭and‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act‬ ‭will‬ ‭come‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭aid‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭learned‬‭trial‬‭court‬‭went‬‭wrong‬‭in‬ ‭acquitting the accused.‬ ‭20.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭when‬ ‭they‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 18‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭balance‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭given‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭signed‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭and‬ ‭even‬ ‭after‬ ‭they‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭fully,‬ ‭and‬ ‭closed‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri,‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭entrusted‬‭with‬‭the‬‭appellant‬‭was‬‭not‬‭returned.‬ ‭Only‬‭to‬‭see,‬ ‭whether‬ ‭they‬ ‭could‬ ‭extract‬ ‭some‬ ‭more‬ ‭money‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭they‬ ‭filed‬ ‭a‬ ‭false‬ ‭complaint,‬ ‭misusing‬ ‭that‬ ‭blank cheque.‬ ‭21.‬‭Relying‬‭on‬‭the‬‭decision‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Hon'ble‬‭Apex‬‭Court‬‭in‬ ‭Bir‬ ‭Singh‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Mukesh‬ ‭Kumar‬‭[(2019)‬ ‭4‬ ‭SCC‬ ‭197],‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭argue‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭leaf,‬ ‭voluntary‬ ‭signed‬ ‭and‬ ‭handed‬ ‭over‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭towards‬ ‭some‬ ‭payment,‬ ‭would‬ ‭attract‬ ‭presumption‬‭under‬‭Section‬‭139‬‭of‬‭the‬‭NI‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬ ‭of‬ ‭any‬ ‭cogent‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭issued‬ ‭in‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭debt.‬ ‭Paragraphs‬ ‭33‬ ‭to‬ ‭36‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭judgment read thus:‬ ‭"33.‬ ‭A‬ ‭meaningful‬ ‭reading‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭provisions‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬ ‭Instruments‬ ‭Act‬ ‭including,‬ ‭in‬ ‭particular,‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭20,‬ ‭87‬ ‭and‬ ‭139,‬ ‭makes‬ ‭it‬ ‭amply‬ ‭clear‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭person‬ ‭who‬ ‭signs‬ ‭a‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭and‬ ‭makes‬ ‭it‬ ‭over‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭payee‬‭remains‬‭liable‬‭unless‬‭he‬‭adduces‬‭evidence‬‭to‬‭rebut‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 19‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭had‬ ‭been‬ ‭issued‬ ‭for‬ ‭payment‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭debt‬ ‭or‬ ‭in‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭liability.‬ ‭It‬ ‭is‬ ‭immaterial‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭may‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭filled‬ ‭in‬ ‭by‬ ‭any‬ ‭person‬ ‭other‬ ‭than‬ ‭the‬ ‭drawer,‬ ‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭duly‬ ‭signed‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭drawer.‬ ‭If‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭otherwise‬ ‭valid,‬ ‭the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.‬ ‭34.‬‭If‬‭a‬‭signed‬‭blank‬‭cheque‬‭is‬‭voluntarily‬‭presented‬‭to‬‭a‬ ‭payee,‬‭towards‬‭some‬‭payment,‬‭the‬‭payee‬‭may‬‭fill‬‭up‬‭the‬ ‭amount‬ ‭and‬ ‭other‬ ‭particulars.‬ ‭This‬ ‭in‬ ‭itself‬ ‭would‬ ‭not‬ ‭invalidate‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque.‬ ‭The‬ ‭onus‬ ‭would‬ ‭still‬ ‭be‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬‭to‬‭prove‬‭that‬‭the‬‭cheque‬‭was‬‭not‬‭in‬‭discharge‬‭of‬ ‭a debt or liability by adducing evidence.‬ ‭35.‬‭It‬‭is‬‭not‬‭the‬‭case‬‭of‬‭the‬‭respondent‬‭-‬‭accused‬‭that‬‭he‬ ‭either‬ ‭signed‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭or‬ ‭parted‬ ‭with‬ ‭it‬ ‭under‬ ‭any‬ ‭threat‬ ‭or‬ ‭coercion.‬ ‭Nor‬ ‭is‬‭it‬‭the‬‭case‬‭of‬‭the‬‭respondent‬‭-‬ ‭accused‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭unfilled‬‭signed‬‭cheque‬‭had‬‭been‬‭stolen.‬ ‭The‬ ‭existence‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭fiduciary‬ ‭relationship‬ ‭between‬ ‭the‬ ‭payee‬‭of‬‭a‬‭cheque‬‭and‬‭its‬‭drawer,‬‭would‬‭not‬‭disentitle‬‭the‬ ‭payee‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭benefit‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭139‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Negotiable‬‭Instruments‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬‭of‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭of‬ ‭exercise‬ ‭of‬ ‭undue‬ ‭influence‬ ‭or‬ ‭coercion.‬‭The‬ ‭second question is also answered in the negative.‬ ‭36.‬ ‭Even‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭leaf,‬ ‭voluntarily‬ ‭signed‬ ‭and‬ ‭handed‬ ‭over‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused,‬ ‭which‬ ‭is‬ ‭towards‬ ‭some‬ ‭payment,‬ ‭would‬ ‭attract‬ ‭presumption‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Negotiable‬‭Instruments‬‭Act,‬‭in‬‭the‬‭absence‬‭of‬‭any‬ ‭cogent‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬‭that‬‭the‬‭cheque‬‭was‬‭not‬‭issued‬ ‭in discharge of a debt."‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 20‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭22.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭issuance‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭though‬‭according‬‭to‬‭them,‬‭it‬ ‭was‬‭issued‬‭as‬‭a‬‭blank‬‭signed‬‭cheque.‬‭They‬‭are‬‭not‬‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭fact‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭which‬ ‭they‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭and‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭were‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭paid,‬ ‭even‬‭after‬‭auctioning‬‭the‬‭kuri.‬‭Obviously,‬‭Ext.P2‬‭cheque‬‭was‬ ‭issued‬‭not‬‭under‬‭any‬‭threat‬‭or‬‭coercion,‬‭and‬‭even‬‭according‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭respondents,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭issued‬‭as‬‭a‬‭security‬‭for‬‭the‬‭future‬ ‭instalments‬‭to‬‭be‬‭paid‬‭in‬‭the‬‭kuri,‬‭which‬‭they‬‭had‬‭auctioned.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Moideen‬ ‭v.‬ ‭Johny‬ ‭[2006‬ ‭KHC‬ ‭1055],‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭even‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭security,‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭in‬ ‭possession‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭can‬ ‭enter‬ ‭the‬ ‭amount‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭liability‬ ‭and‬ ‭present‬ ‭it‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭bank.‬ ‭When‬ ‭a‬ ‭blank‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭is‬ ‭issued‬ ‭by‬ ‭one‬ ‭to‬ ‭another,‬ ‭it‬ ‭gives‬ ‭an‬ ‭authority‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭person,‬ ‭to‬ ‭whom‬ ‭it‬‭is‬‭issued,‬‭to‬‭fill‬‭it‬‭up‬‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭appropriate‬ ‭stage,‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭necessary‬‭entities‬‭regarding‬ ‭the‬ ‭liability,‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭present‬ ‭it‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭bank.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭event‬ ‭of‬ ‭dishonour‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭absolved‬ ‭from his liability.‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 21‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭23.‬‭Another‬‭contention‬‭taken‬‭up‬‭by‬‭learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭is‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭did‬ ‭not‬ ‭produce‬ ‭the‬ ‭account‬ ‭books‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭chitty‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭Rs.2,13,000/-‬‭was‬ ‭due‬ ‭from‬ ‭them.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that,‬ ‭production‬ ‭of‬ ‭account‬ ‭books‬ ‭etc.‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭civil‬ ‭court,‬ ‭but‬ ‭as‬ ‭far‬ ‭as‬ ‭a‬ ‭criminal‬‭case‬‭under‬ ‭Section‬‭138‬‭of‬‭the‬‭NI‬‭Act‬‭is‬‭concerned,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭presumption‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭holder‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque,‬ ‭and‬ ‭so‬ ‭the‬ ‭burden‬ ‭is‬ ‭upon‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬‭to‬‭rebut‬‭that‬‭presumption.‬‭She‬‭would‬ ‭rely‬ ‭on‬ ‭a‬ ‭decision‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭Apex‬ ‭Court‬‭in‬‭Chandel‬‭D.‬ ‭K.‬‭v.‬‭M/s.‬‭Wockhardt‬‭Ltd.‬‭and‬‭Another‬‭[2020‬‭KHC‬‭6204]‬ ‭which‬ ‭says‬ ‭that‬ ‭production‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭account‬ ‭books/cash‬ ‭book‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭relevant‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭civil‬ ‭court;‬ ‭but‬ ‭may‬ ‭not‬ ‭be‬ ‭so,‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭criminal‬ ‭case‬ ‭filed‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭because‬ ‭of‬ ‭the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque.‬ ‭24.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭disputing‬ ‭the‬ ‭fact‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭had‬ ‭subscribed‬ ‭kuries‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭company.‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭commenced‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1996,‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭terminated‬ ‭on‬ ‭12.11.1998.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 22‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭first‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭passbook,‬ ‭a‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭is‬ ‭found‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭date‬‭14.02.1997‬‭.‬‭According‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭the‬‭date‬ ‭on‬‭which‬‭that‬‭kuri‬‭was‬‭auctioned‬‭by‬‭the‬‭respondents.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬ ‭10th‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭passbook,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭an‬‭endorsement‬‭in‬‭red‬ ‭ink,‬ ‭as‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'.‬ ‭So‬ ‭according‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭the‬ ‭endorsement‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'‬ ‭and‬‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page‬‭of‬‭the‬‭passbook,‬‭will‬‭show‬‭that‬ ‭he‬ ‭had‬ ‭paid‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭amount‬ ‭due‬ ‭under‬ ‭that‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭and‬ ‭so,‬ ‭no amount was due, so as to issue Ext.P2 cheque.‬ ‭25.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭contend‬ ‭that,‬‭if‬‭the‬‭kuri‬‭was‬‭closed‬‭on‬‭14.12.1998,‬‭the‬‭passbook‬‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭the‬ ‭seal‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed'‬‭,‬ ‭just‬ ‭like‬ ‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭was‬ ‭auctioned‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭definitely‬ ‭there‬ ‭would‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭future‬ ‭instalments,‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭paid‬ ‭monthly,‬ ‭till‬ ‭the‬ ‭termination‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭kuri.‬ ‭When‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭are‬ ‭alleging‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭instalments‬ ‭due‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant,‬‭it‬‭is‬‭their‬‭burden,‬‭to‬‭prove‬ ‭it‬‭with‬‭cogent‬‭evidence.‬‭They‬‭could‬‭have‬‭very‬‭well‬‭called‬‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭Registers‬ ‭pertaining‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 23‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭amount‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭paid‬ ‭by‬ ‭them.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭since‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭custody‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭they‬ ‭themselves‬ ‭might‬ ‭have‬ ‭made‬ ‭the‬ ‭red‬ ‭ink‬ ‭entry‬ ‭'‭c ‬ losed‬ ‭14.12.1998'.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭was‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭the‬ ‭manipulation‬ ‭as‬ ‭alleged‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭cannot‬ ‭be‬ ‭ruled‬ ‭out.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭seems‬ ‭to‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭carried‬ ‭away‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭seen‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭first‬ ‭page‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.D1‬ ‭passbook‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭entire‬ ‭dues‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭kuri‬ ‭was‬ ‭paid‬ ‭off‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents.‬ ‭Obviously,‬ ‭that‬ ‭'PAID'‬ ‭seal‬ ‭was‬ ‭regarding‬ ‭payment‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭company, when the kuri was auctioned by the respondents.‬ ‭26.‬‭Learned‬‭counsel‬‭for‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭would‬‭contend‬ ‭that,‬ ‭on‬ ‭receipt‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭lawyer‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭they‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭reply‬ ‭notice‬ ‭disowning‬ ‭the‬‭liability‬‭and‬‭disputing‬‭issuance‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭cheque.‬ ‭But‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭produced‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭on‬ ‭receipt‬ ‭of‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice.‬ ‭In‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭stated‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭facing‬ ‭financial‬ ‭difficulties‬ ‭and‬ ‭they‬ ‭were‬ ‭making‬ ‭every‬ ‭effort‬ ‭to‬ ‭raise‬ ‭funds‬ ‭to‬ ‭settle‬ ‭the‬ ‭account.‬ ‭But,‬ ‭learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭for‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 24‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭would‬ ‭say‬ ‭that,‬ ‭they‬ ‭never‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭reply‬‭notice‬‭to‬‭the‬‭appellant.‬‭But‬‭Ext.P10(a)‬‭postal‬‭cover‬‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭that,‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭to‬ ‭Adv.Sri.K.S.Babu,‬ ‭who‬ ‭sent‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice.‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭notice‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭Ext.P10‬‭notice‬‭are‬‭on‬‭the‬‭same‬‭day‬‭i.e.‬‭10.01.2002.‬ ‭But‬ ‭Ext.D2‬ ‭was‬ ‭addressed‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant‬ ‭directly.‬ ‭The‬ ‭postal‬‭receipt‬‭or‬‭acknowledgement‬‭card‬‭of‬‭Ext.D2‬‭notice‬‭was‬ ‭not‬ ‭produced‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭Ext.P5‬ ‭notice‬ ‭was‬ ‭sent‬ ‭by‬ ‭an‬ ‭advocate,‬ ‭normally‬ ‭the‬ ‭reply‬ ‭also‬ ‭should‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭given‬ ‭to‬ ‭that‬ ‭advocate.‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice‬ ‭along‬ ‭with‬ ‭Ext.P10(a)‬ ‭cover‬ ‭seem‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭more‬ ‭reliable.‬ ‭On‬ ‭going‬ ‭through‬ ‭Ext.P10‬ ‭notice,‬ ‭it‬ ‭could‬ ‭be‬ ‭seen‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭were‬ ‭admitting‬ ‭their‬ ‭liability‬ ‭to‬ ‭certain‬ ‭extent,‬ ‭towards the balance amount due on prized chits.‬ ‭27.‬‭Adverting‬‭to‬‭the‬‭aforesaid‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭circumstances,‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭view‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭trial‬ ‭court‬ ‭went‬ ‭wrong‬ ‭in‬ ‭acquitting‬ ‭the‬ ‭accused.‬ ‭So,‬‭the‬‭impugned‬‭judgment‬‭is‬‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭set‬ ‭aside.‬ ‭There‬ ‭is‬ ‭evidence‬ ‭to‬ ‭show‬ ‭that‬ ‭Ext.P2‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭issued‬ ‭towards‬ ‭discharge‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭legally‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 25‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭enforceable‬ ‭debt,‬ ‭and‬ ‭that‬ ‭cheque‬ ‭was‬ ‭dishonoured‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭reason‬‭'A/c‬‭transferred‬‭to‬‭suit‬‭file.‬‭No‬‭balance.'‬‭The‬‭appellant‬ ‭had‬ ‭complied‬ ‭with‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭statutory‬ ‭formalities‬ ‭in‬ ‭order‬ ‭to‬ ‭attract‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭punishable‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act.‬‭The‬‭complainant‬‭was‬‭authorized‬‭as‬‭per‬‭Ext.P8‬‭extract‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭resolution,‬ ‭to‬ ‭file‬ ‭the‬ ‭complaint‬ ‭and‬ ‭to‬ ‭give‬ ‭evidence.‬ ‭The‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭failed‬ ‭to‬ ‭rebut‬ ‭the‬ ‭presumptions‬ ‭available‬ ‭in‬ ‭favour‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭appellant,‬ ‭under‬ ‭Sections‬ ‭118‬ ‭and‬ ‭139‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act.‬ ‭So,‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭1‬ ‭and‬ ‭2‬ ‭are‬ ‭found‬ ‭guilty‬‭under‬ ‭Section 138 of the NI Act.‬ ‭28.‬ ‭As‬ ‭per‬ ‭Section‬ ‭141‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭NI‬ ‭Act,‬ ‭if‬ ‭the‬ ‭person‬ ‭committing‬ ‭an‬ ‭offence‬ ‭under‬ ‭Section‬ ‭138‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭company,‬ ‭every‬ ‭person‬ ‭who,‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭time‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭was‬ ‭committed,‬ ‭was‬ ‭in‬ ‭charge‬ ‭of,‬ ‭and‬ ‭was‬ ‭responsible‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭company‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭conduct‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭business‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭as‬ ‭well‬ ‭as‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭deemed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭and‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭proceeded‬ ‭against‬ ‭and‬ ‭punished‬ ‭accordingly‬‭. Section 141(2) of the NI Act reads thus:‬ CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008‬ ‭ 26‬ ‭ 2024:KER:82742‬ ‭ ‭"141. Offences by companies. --‬ ‭(1) xxx xxx xxx‬ ‭(2)‬‭Notwithstanding‬‭anything‬‭contained‬‭in‬‭sub-section‬‭(1),‬ ‭where‬ ‭any‬ ‭offence‬ ‭under‬ ‭this‬‭Act,‬‭has‬‭been‬‭committed‬‭by‬ ‭a‬ ‭company‬ ‭and‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭proved‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭offence‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭committed‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭consent‬ ‭or‬ ‭connivance‬ ‭of,‬ ‭or‬ ‭is‬ ‭attributable‬ ‭to,‬ ‭any‬ ‭neglect‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭part‬ ‭of,‬ ‭any‬ ‭director,‬ ‭manager,‬ ‭secretary‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭officer‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭company,‬ ‭such‬ ‭director,‬ ‭manager,‬ ‭secretary‬ ‭or‬ ‭other‬ ‭officer‬ ‭shall‬ ‭also‬ ‭be‬ ‭deemed‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭guilty‬ ‭of‬ ‭that‬ ‭offence‬ ‭and‬ ‭shall‬ ‭be‬ ‭liable‬ ‭to‬ ‭be proceeded against and punished accordingly.‬ ‭Explanation‬‭: For the purposes, of this section,--‬ ‭(a)‬ ‭"company"‬‭means‬‭any‬‭body‬‭corporate‬‭and‬‭includes‬‭a‬ ‭firm or other association of individuals; and‬ ‭(b)‬ ‭"director",‬ ‭in‬ ‭relation‬ ‭to‬ ‭a‬ ‭firm,‬ ‭means‬ ‭a‬ ‭partner‬ ‭in‬ ‭the firm."‬ ‭29.‬ ‭In‬ ‭the‬ ‭case‬ ‭on‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭the‬ ‭2nd‬ ‭respondent‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭partnership‬ ‭firm‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭1st‬ ‭res

This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/accused in S.C.No.561 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1)(i), 363 of IPC, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is 4 years.

Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024

in &

2. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor.

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (`Cr.P.C' for short) the sole accused in S.C.No.280/2016 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences relating to atrocities against Women and Children including Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (`POCSO') Cases, Alappuzha, impugns order in Crl.M.P.No.975/2022 dated 12.04.2022.

2. When this matter came up for admission on 19.04.2022, this Court stayed the proceedings in S.C.No.280/2016 till 18.05.2022 and thereafter stay has been extended periodically.

3. As on 16.10.2024, the learned Special Judge sent a 2024:KER:83133 letter to this Court as directed by the committee of this Court to monitor and regulate the process of trials under the POCSO Act stating that this case comes under the 5+ year old category and that all further proceedings in this case have been stayed by this Court and is one among the pending oldest cases before the Special Court.

Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 8 th accused in Crime No.1360/2024 of the Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2024.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had during the period from September 2023 to 13.05.2024 induced the defacto complainant to make investments in their companies named 'INVESCO CAPITAL' and 'GOLDMANS SACHS'. Accordingly the defacto 2024:KER:83459 complainant invested Rs.7,65,00,000/- by transferring the amount from his and his wife's joint account believing that he would receive Rs.39,72,85,929/-. However, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 1st accused in Crime No.796/2024 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 08.09.2024.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 11.06.2024, at 11:45 hours, the accused 1 to 3 had pledged spurious gold ornaments, weighing 16.150 grams, with the defacto complainant and received Rs.69,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 882/2024 of the Thrissur West Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 506, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; one day between 10 and 15th of May 2023, the accused wrongfully confined the survivor in a class room at Thrissur Kerala Varma College, and after causing hurt to her, he undressed and committed rape on her. The accused also uttered obscene words and intimidated the survivor, saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would murder her. Thus, the accused has 2024:KER:83438 committed the above offences.

The application is filed under Sec.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') by the 4th accused in Crime No.376/2024 of the Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against six accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii) (A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 6(b) r/w Section 24 of the COTPA Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2024

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused 1 to 6 had hatched a conspiracy to procure narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance to make illegal profit. Accordingly, the 1st accused received Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th accused and went in a car BAIL APPL. NO. 6026 OF 2024 2024:KER:83332 bearing registration No.KL-07-CA-4056 to Bangalore and purchased 180 grams of MDMA from the 6 th accused. After the accused 1 to 3 returned back to Kerala with the contraband article, they handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the 4th accused. They also proposed to give 100 grams of MDMA to the 5 th accused for the money he paid the 1st accused. While the 1st accused was traveling in the car with 100 grams of MDMA, 4 grams of ganja and Hans, to hand over the same to the 5th accused, the Detecting Officer intercepted the vehicle at Maradu, Ernakulam and seized 101.09 grams of MDMA from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1900/2024 & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1905/2024 These applications under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicants/accused persons in S.C.No.1313 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kollam. The accused persons11 in number have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. They have been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore the maximum period of imprisonment they will have to undergo is five years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl. Appeal Nos.1900 & 1905 of 2024

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the first accused in Crime No. 690/2024 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354 A, 354 B and 506(1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(a), 4(1), 6, 5(1), 11(ii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, 'the POCSO Act'), 2012. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2024.

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

This appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is filed by the Original Petitioner, challenging the judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 37000 of 2024, dated 30 October 2024. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the Petitioner's request, the mother of the minor survivor girl, to medically terminate her pregnancy.

2. The petitioner is the mother of a 16-year-old school-going girl. She has been subjected to repeated sexual assault. A crime has been registered at the police station under Sections 354, 354A(2), 354B, 376, 376(2)

(n), 376(3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 4(1), (2) read with Sections 3(a), 6 read with 5(j)(ii), (1), 8 read with 7, and 12 read with 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Neither the minor nor her mother was aware of the pregnancy until a Gynaecologist confirmed it. By that time, the foetus had reached a gestational age of 25 weeks and 6 days, and it was not possible to medically terminate the pregnancy without intervention of the Court.

Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023('BNSS', for the sake of brevity), by the third accused in Crime No.1231/2024 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against four accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 29 & 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 01.08.2024.

2. The concise case of the prosecution, is that: on 22.07.2024, at around 04:20 hours, the first accused was found in conscious possession of 45 grams of MDMA. He was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. During the course of the investigation and interrogation of the first accused, it 2024:KER:83250 was revealed that it was the fourth accused who had given financial assistance to the first accused. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are also involved in the case. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

KOCHUVEETHIL HOUSE, ERANZHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031 BY ADVS.

MADHAVANUNNI V T LEO LUKOSE(K/001131/2016) T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001) VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN(K/000197/1983) B.G HARINDRANATH(SR.) SRI. RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADV.ALEX JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

2024:KER:83495 CRL.MC NO. 3248 OF 2023 CR ORDE R Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case.

The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg

The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024.

The time mentioned is peremptory.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

reasonable time.

The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding.

Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter.

Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award.

As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it.

The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time.

2

We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage.

The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of.

The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024.

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in WPO/1664/2023 challenging the interim order dated 14.12.2023.

By the said interim order the positive direction has been issued to the appellant to disburse the dues to the writ petitioner in terms of the bills for the period other than pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and also the appellant has been restrained till the disposal of the writ petition from refusing to accept the bills which has been filed by the writ petitioner for the subsequent period including the current years.

We find that relief granted to the writ petitioner is in fact the relief which has been prayed for by the writ petitioner in prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The learned Single Bench was also conscious of the fact that to decide the matter finally affidavits have to be called for and, accordingly, issued appropriate direction.

It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018.

An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement.

Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate.

The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.666/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error by not considering the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital / share premium of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there is accommodation entry in the instant case?

learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar

The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14.

We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law.

Date: November 8, 2024.

Appearance :

Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv.

Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv.

... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges.

The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate.

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate.

2

It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate.

The Court:- Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate prays for hearing of this application under section11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the arbitrability of a dispute should not be decided by this Bench. This issue should also be decided by the learned arbitrator. Mr. Mitra further contends that once there is an arbitration clause and arbitration has been invoked under section 21 of the said Act, all that this court is supposed to do is to appoint an independent person to act as an arbitrator.

2

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent opposes such prayer and submits that the order passed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of Mr. Mitra's client, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Mr. Sinha has produced an order dated 15th April, 2024 passed in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute has been raised. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that it would be up to the learned single judge whether to decide the question or to adjourn the proceedings, in order to enable the Division Bench to proceed. Mr. Sinha submits that the erstwhile Single Bench had adjourned this matter, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble appeal Court.

The Court:- This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1964/Kol/2019 and C.O. No.39/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the invocation of sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of appellant, the appellant's claim that expenditure of Rs.9,77,888/ was incurred in relation to the exempt income was not correct?

The Court: Liberty is granted to the advocate-on-record for the claimant to correct the description of the application in the cause title.

By communication dated September 3, 2024, learned sole arbitrator appointed by the court informed the parties that he had resigned from the matter. He thus refused to act as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

2

Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a suit. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) is also pending before the learned Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. As such, this Court must refrain from appointing an arbitrator as the issues involved in the suit are yet to be decided and the application under Section 8 of the said Act has been filed with similar prayers.

The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/491/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

a. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in granting relief to the assessee without considering the fact that neither the assessee nor the amalgamating company informed the AO about the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore defect in not issuing notice in the name of amalgamated company remained a curable defect under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against an order dated October 26, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.1842/Kol/2017, for the assessment order 2009-10.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additional made by the A.O. towards unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions overlooking the fact that not even a single Director of the share subscribing companies appeared before the Assessing Officer nor provided a valid reason for their non-appearance?