1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.678 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.700 OF 2009 M/s. J.J.Marketing Agency & Ors. ...Applicants (Orig.Accused) Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Rakesh K. Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. K.O.Devassy, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 11TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The applicants apply for bail. The applicants have been convicted by the learned Special Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Small Causes Court, Mumbai on 28th September 2007 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,33,000/- by each of the 3 accused. The Appeal filed by the applicants herein has been dismissed on 15th November 2007. 2 2.Consequently there are two concurrent findings of fact against the applicants/accused herein. The Court would be required to see the material irregularity in the impugned orders, if any. 3.The accused contend that the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction. The Flexi Loan Agreement between the parties shows the Creditor Bank to be in Bombay. The Debtors/accused are residents of Calcutta and carry on business in Calcutta. Hence, they have signed the agreement in Calcutta. Thereafter, the letter of continuing the D.P Note is sent by the applicants for Rs.30 lakhs to the Bank in Mumbai. Similarly the letter by Partnership/Proprietorship is executed in favour of the Bank in Mumbai. The request letter for over-draft facility is itself sent to the Bank in Mumbai. The territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate is seen. 4.The applicants contend that the authority of the Officer of Bank who filed the complaint and who gave the evidence was improper. The Advocate for the applicant drew my attention to the Power of Attorney executed by Sanjeev Agarwal, the Chief Operating Officer of the Standard Chartered Bank, a Company 3 incorporated in England under the Royal Charter. It is not a limited Company under the Companies Act. Its Chief Operating Officer in India represents the Bank. That officer is shown to have authority to appoint his officers or authorised attorney or to revoke his authorised attorney. The officer who filed the complaint has been so appointed. The officer who gave evidence has also been so appointed. The authority of both the officers is clear and complete. 5.The applicants contend that the case was sought to be proved on copies of the documents. That is by secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is allowed under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act 1862 since the Bank had lost the original documents. The Bank s application shows that the documents were lost after the complaint was filed. Secondary evidence can, therefore, be correctly led. 6.The applicants have disputed the signature of applicant NO.3 on the agreement with the Bank as well as on the dishonoured cheques and the other post dated cheques. The applicants are stated to have executed 5 post dated cheques. The complaint is filed on two of them. These two post dated cheques are lost. The other three post dated cheques are produced in the original because they were not lost. The applicant NO.3 has disputed his 4 signatures on them. The learned Judge has compared the signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The procedure is correct. No case for grant of bail after two convictions by two competent courts of jurisdiction is made out. No material irregularity is seen. 7.The application is rejected. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)