IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1974 OF 2008 Wardhaman Communications and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. IDEA Cellular Ltd. and another. ..Respondents Mr .S.S.Shah , Advocate for petitioners. Mr.Durgesh Margatia i/b. Mr.Bharuka & Partners, for Resp.No.1. Miss.S.V.Gajre , APP for State. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 9th April, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by first respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. Process was issued on the said complaint. Revision Application filed by the petitioners for challenging said order has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2 The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the complaint was not maintainable in as much as the same was not filed by the constituted attorney of first respondent; but was filed by a person who was authorised by the constituted attorney. He submitted that the complaint has not been signed and verified by the constituted attorney of first respondent. 3 I have considered the submissions. Whether the person who signed and verified the complaint was authorised to do so is a matter which can be determined only on the basis of evidence adduced. Apart from this, if there is a lack of authority in the person who has signed the complaint, said defect can be rectified at the appropriate stage. At this stage, the order issuing process cannot be quashed on the grounds which are urged in the petition. 4 Writ Petitiion is, accordingly, rejected. However, all contentions which are raised by the petitioners are expressly kept open and the petitioners are at liberty to raise the said contentions at an appropriate stage. [ A. S. Oka, J ] wp1974-08