In a significant judgment of M/s. Prince Marine Transport Services Private Limited, through its Authorized Representative, Hashim Abdul Razak, Mumbai v/s State of Maharashtra & Another, the appellate court set aside the acquittal of the respondent-accused in a case involving dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment was delivered after considering the question of authorization of the complainant’s representative and the proper mode of document proof during the trial.

The case revolved around the dishonor of two cheques issued by the respondent, Boppana G. Chaudhary, to M/s. Prince Marine Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. (the complainant). Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate had acquitted the accused, holding that the complainant had failed to prove the authorization of its representative to file the complaint and give evidence. However, the appellate court found merit in the appeal filed by the complainant, challenging the acquittal.

The appeal focused on two primary issues:

Whether the complainant company had proven that its representative, Mr. Hashim Abdul Razak, was authorized to depose before the court.

Whether the trial court erred in discarding the evidence of the board resolution and minutes book as proof of authorization.

The complainant’s counsel, Senior Advocate Shri Ponda, argued that there were sufficient circumstances to prove the authorization. He relied on the affidavit of Mr. Razak, the Chairman and Authorized Representative of the complainant company, which confirmed the passing of a board resolution on December 2, 2010, authorizing him to file the complaint and represent the company. This affidavit, along with certified copies of the board resolution and minutes book, were submitted as evidence. However, the trial court had refused to accept these documents, claiming that the original minutes book was not produced for verification.

Mr. Ponda contended that the trial court had failed to appreciate the affidavit and the certified copies of the documents in their proper context. He argued that the failure to produce the original minutes book was not a fatal flaw since the complainant had provided sufficient proof through secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. He cited several precedents, including the C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed case, to assert that the affidavit of authorization was sufficient to prove the complainant’s standing.

Additionally, Mr. Ponda pointed out that during the trial, the accused had not objected to the mode of proof of the documents, nor had they raised any issues about the non-production of originals during cross-examination or at subsequent stages. According to him, the trial court’s findings on this issue were based on an overly technical interpretation of the law.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, Advocate Shri Satyanarayanan, emphasized that the original documents, including the minutes book and the board resolution, had never been presented before the court. He argued that the complainant had failed to discharge its burden of proving the authorization by not adhering to the prescribed procedure of producing original documents. Mr. Satyanarayanan further contended that since the complainant had not produced the originals during re-examination, the trial court’s refusal to accept the certified copies was justified.

The appellate court, after a detailed review of the trial proceedings, observed several critical points:

Authorization of the Representative: The court found that the complainant had sufficiently demonstrated that Mr. Razak was authorized to represent the company and file the complaint. The affidavit and the certified true copies of the board resolution and minutes book were deemed adequate evidence of authorization. The court also noted that the absence of a signed copy of the board resolution, which had been raised by the respondent, was not a decisive factor, as the affidavit affirmed the resolution’s passage.

Proof of Documents: The court concluded that the failure to produce the original minutes book was not a fatal flaw. The complainant had fulfilled its obligation by presenting certified true copies of the resolution and minutes book, and the respondent had not raised objections at the appropriate stages. The court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the non-production of the original minutes book as a basis to discard the evidence.

Perverse Findings: The appellate court criticized the trial court for its hyper-technical approach in dismissing the documents, stating that such findings were “perverse” and not in line with the principles of evidence law. The court noted that the complainant had provided sufficient proof of the authorization, and the respondent had failed to challenge the authenticity of the documents during the trial.

Ultimately, the appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s judgment of acquittal. The respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 crore, with Rs. 99.9 lakh to be paid to the complainant and Rs. 10,000 to be appropriated to the state government. The court also directed that in case of default, the respondent would face six months of simple imprisonment.

While sentencing, the court considered the respondent’s advanced age (85 years) and chose to impose a fine instead of imprisonment. This decision reflected a balance between ensuring justice for the complainant and taking into account the personal circumstances of the accused.

The court’s judgment not only reaffirmed the complainant's right to pursue legal remedies through authorized representatives but also highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural norms in proving documents. The ruling emphasizes that, in certain cases, secondary evidence can suffice if the primary documents are unavailable, provided proper procedure is followed.