Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Satya Finance, Kakinada, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., Hyd Anr., on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2013
ORDER:-
There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The complainant filed private complaint under Sections.138
and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act")
against the accused.
3. On adducing evidence, the Court of learned Special Judicial
First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada convicted
the accused under section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to
pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
4. Aggrieved by the calendar and judgment dated 20.09.2010 in
C.C.No.496 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Special
Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise,
Kakinada, the accused preferred an appeal before, the Court of
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada viz.
Criminal Appeal No.331 of 2010. The lower appellate Court framed
issue No.4 which is extracted as hereunder:-
"Whether PW1 is competent to file and maintain the Complaint ?"
5. The lower appellate Court held that the complainant is
incompetent to file the complaint and allowed the criminal appeal by
judgment dated 07.01.2013 by acquitting the accused for the charge
framed against him on the ground that there was no authorization
filed by the petitioner.
6. As per the judgment reported in "Sri Lakshmi Kanchana
Finance Corporation V. The State of Andhra Pradesh & another 1" it is
held that the complaint under Sections. 138 and 142 of the Act can
be filed by a partner of firm even though he is not specifically
authorized and the said judgment was followed by the High Court of
Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No.3606 of
2009 dated 05.07.2013. In the same lines, the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in "Uttam Traders Ranghri V. Tule Ram Alias Tula
Ram2" held that the complaint can be filed by the partner of the firm
without authorization.
7. In the present case, the petitioner/complainant filed the
attested xerox copy of firm registration, wherein the complainant was
a partner and the same is marked as Ex P1. The judgments cited by
the lower appellate Court are not relevant to the facts of the case.
10. Relying on the afore cited judgments, this Court feels it
appropriate to set aside the judgment dated 07.01.2013 in Criminal
Appeal No.331 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada and remand back
the record to the lower appellate Court to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 30-03-2022
EPS
AIR 2010 (NOC) 406 (A.P.)
2018 Law Suit (HP) 1325
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Crl.R.C.No.607 OF 2013
Date: 30-03-2022
EPS
