IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1964 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRMP.3486/2007 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------ HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT HDFC HOUSE RAVIPURAM JN., M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-15 REPRESENTED BY JUNIOR OFFICER-RECOVERY MR.ARUN KUMAR.N, AGED 31 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. SATHEESAN. L, NALAM VADUKKAL HOUSE BARER (PO), UDUMA, KASARGOD-19. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos.1964 of 2009 & 1965 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 1st day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner, and the public prosecutor who took notice for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 though served remains absent. 2. These revisions are in challenge of order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 18-09-07 on CMP Nos.3486 of 2007 and 3487 of 2007. Petitioner filed complaints against respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Along with the complaints CMP Nos.3486 of 2007 and 3487 of 2007 were filed to condone the delay in filing the complaint. Petitioner is a company and hence represented in the proceedings in the court below by its Junior Officer. Letter of authority issued in favour of that officer by the petitioner was also produced. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that neither the certified copy of the power of attorney nor the resolution of the company are produced in spite of specific orders. Hence the petitions for condonation of delay were rejected. Petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. It is contented by CrlR.P.No.1964 of 2009 2 learned counsel that it is not necessary to produce power of attorney since the complaint is filed by company though represented by its Junior Officer. Learned counsel placed reliance on decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Gee Kay Exim (India) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat (1998(1) KLT short note case No.31 (page no.35)). There, it is held that where a complaint filed by and in the name of an individual on behalf of a company authorization from the company is necessary, but where a complaint is filed in the name of and on behalf of a company, it may be signed by an officer of the company and no authorization in favour of that person is necessary. 3. It is seen from the copy of letter of authority produced by the petitioner in the court below that the Chief Legal Adviser of the company, for and on behalf on that company has authorized the Junior Officer who verified and signed the complaints and presented it in the court below to do so. Appended to that letter of authority is the copy of resolution of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the company, where it is stated that it has resolved to authorize the Chief Legal Adviser to delegate all or any of its powers stated in the resolution to any employee or officer of the company. 4. Presently I am not going to the question whether the authority given to the Chief Legal Adviser is sufficient under law. There is no reason CrlR.P.No.1964 of 2009 3 why in the light of letter of authority produced the complaint and the petition to condone delay should be rejected at the threshold, whether the authorization produced is sufficient or whether any such authorization itself is required as a matter which can be agitated by the parties in the course of the trial or in the course of enquiry on the petition to condone the delay. Viewed on that angle I am unable to sustain the orders under challenge. Resultantly these revisions succeed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for appropriate further proceedings on the petitions and complaints. I make it clear that it will be open to respondent No.1 to raise appropriate contention regarding the authority of the officer who has verified and signed the complaints, in the court below at the appropriate stage. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/