LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007)Decided 28 Jan 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007
Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya · Justice S.A. Bobde

Background

In the first appeal, several complainants' power-of-attorney holder filed cheque-dishonour complaints against A.C. Narayanan (managing director of a company) that never actually referenced or exhibited a Power of Attorney in the complaint record; the trial court nevertheless issued process and the High Court upheld it. In the second, tagged-along appeal, a company's complaint under Section 138 had been signed and pursued by an employee holding a General Power of Attorney who was not himself authorised by the company's board resolution to file such complaints; the trial court acquitted the accused but the High Court reversed that acquittal. Both appeals turned on a common legal question already referred to and decided by a three-judge Bench in an earlier round of the same litigation (A.C. Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, 2013).

Decision Breakdown

Applying the larger Bench's 2013 ruling, the Court reiterated that a Power of Attorney holder can file and pursue a Section 138 complaint on behalf of the payee, but only if the complaint itself explicitly asserts the attorney holder's personal knowledge of the transaction and the power of attorney is properly placed on record. In A.C. Narayanan's case, since the complaint record contained no genuine reference to any Power of Attorney and the verification statement never claimed to be made as an attorney holder, the Magistrate had wrongly taken cognizance, so the complaint and all consequent proceedings were quashed. In the Kamalakar case, since the complaint had been signed by a mere employee who was never authorised by the company's resolution to file complaints (only the Managing Director/Directors were so authorised, with power to nominate representatives, which was not properly done here), the trial court's original acquittal was correct and the High Court's reversal of it was itself set aside.

Lesson Learnt

A cheque-bounce complaint filed through someone else's Power of Attorney will fail unless that attorney holder's personal knowledge of the transaction is explicitly stated in the complaint and the power of attorney is properly placed on the court record: a bare mention in the case title is not enough, and a company must ensure the complaint is filed or properly delegated by someone actually authorised by its board.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case