AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.—A complaint was filed by a company through its authorised representative. While the matter was pending as Crl. M.P. 3837 on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam, the authorised representative who filed the complaint left the service of the company. So, an application was filed for substituting the successor representative, which was allowed by the Court. After the transfer of the learned Magistrate who passed the order allowing substitution, the successor Magistrate without notice to the Petitioner reviewed the earlier order and dismissed the application for substitution. This order is under challenge.
There is no power for the Magistrate to review its earlier orders. The order in review was passed without notice to the Petitioner. The reason stated in the order also do not appear to be correct. The Power of Attorney should be permitted to file a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is nothing wrong in substituting a fresh Power of Attorney or representative of the company in the place of previous Power of Attorney or representative. The Court below as justified in not dismissing the application for substitution. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. The two applications, Crl. M.P. 2450/97 and 2451/97 will stand allowed.