Court Dismisses Appeal by Tenny Jose for Lack of Authorisation and Improper Amendment at Appellate Stage
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case involving a payment of Rs. 1,39,285.50, issued by New Metalised Agency to Steel House Pvt. Ltd. The case, which revolved around the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, saw the complainant, Tenny Jose, appealing against the trial court's verdict, which found procedural lapses in the complaint filing.
The crux of the case centered on the dishonour of a cheque issued by New Metalised Agency, represented by its Managing Partner, to Steel House Pvt. Ltd., where Tenny Jose served as the Managing Director. The cheque was initially dishonoured due to insufficient funds, prompting a statutory notice. Despite a second presentation and subsequent dishonour, the trial court found the complaint defective as it was filed by Tenny Jose in his personal capacity, rather than in the name of the payee, Steel House Pvt. Ltd.
Justice Johnson John, presiding over the appeal, emphasized the importance of filing the complaint in the name of the payee company. The court referred to past Supreme Court judgments, notably in "MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan" and "Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries", reiterating that a company, as a legal entity, must be the complainant in cheque dishonour cases involving corporate payees.
Additionally, the court addressed the appellant's request to amend the complaint at the appellate stage to substitute the complainant and accused names. The court held that such amendments are impermissible if they cause prejudice to the accused or do not pertain to curable legal infirmities, as established in "S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram".
The judgment underscored procedural compliance under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, highlighting that amendments after significant delays could not be entertained, especially when they alter the fundamental parties involved. The court concluded that allowing such amendments nearly 27 years post the original complaint filing would unjustly prejudice the accused.
The appeal, along with the amendment application, was subsequently dismissed, maintaining the trial court's decision and reinforcing the stringent procedural requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Complaint under Section 138 must be filed in the name of the payee or holder in due course of the cheque, and where the payee is a company, the complaint should necessarily be filed in the company's name. Amendment to substitute the complainant and accused at the appellate stage is not permissible if it causes prejudice to the accused or does not relate to a curable infirmity.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sections 138, 142
Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2837446
