Anita Ekka vs. Rajendra Agrawal

Facts

The applicant, Anita Ekka, purchased building materials worth Rs. 6,32,000/- from Shanti Bricks Industries on 21.08.2021 and 25.08.2021, promising payment within a week. Subsequently, the applicant issued a cheque for Rs. 6,50,000/- to Shanti Bricks Industries, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was issued on 06.12.2021. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 05.01.2022. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent was not the authorized payee and failed to prove Smt. Shweta Agrawal's proprietorship of Shanti Bricks Industries. The respondent appealed, and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order. The applicant has filed this revision against the Appellate Court's order.

Held

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court. The Court noted that the trial court dismissed the complaint because photocopies of GST Bills/GST registration certificates were not admissible in secondary evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the complainant failed to produce the original GST registration certificate. The Appellate Court, however, focused only on the power of attorney filed by the respondent to show authorization to file the complaint. The High Court found that the Appellate Court failed to consider the trial court's observation regarding the inadmissibility of the GST registration certificate as secondary evidence. Therefore, the Appellate Court is directed to decide afresh the issue of whether the online copy of the GST certificate is admissible or not, on its own merits, without being influenced by the High Court's order. The operative direction is to remand the matter back to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision on a specific evidentiary issue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court's order of acquittal, considering the admissibility of evidence presented by the complainant? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and principles of evidence). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the impugned judgment is illegal and contrary to law. The respondent failed to establish Smt. Shweta Agrawal's proprietorship of Shanti Bricks Industries and did not provide a power of attorney authorizing the respondent to file the complaint. The applicant contended that even an authorization letter, if marked as an exhibit, does not prove the proprietorship of the firm. Photocopies of GST bills are inadmissible, even in secondary evidence, without permission under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. An authorization letter is not a legal document for deposition on behalf of the complainant unless the holder has witnessed the transaction or possesses due knowledge. Reliance was placed on Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the Appellate Court rightly passed the impugned judgment after considering all aspects of the case, and no interference is needed.