1 crapn4988.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4988 OF 2010 Maharashtra Gramin Bank Ltd., Branch Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Balasaheb Namdeorao Ghorpade. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. S.S. Deve, Advocate for applicant. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the points framed by the trial Court and submitted that all points are answered in favour of the complainant except point No.1. The complaint of the complainant has been rejected on 2 crapn4988.10 the ground that officer who represented the complainant bank was not authorised officer. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant invited attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shankar Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008 LawSuit (SC) 2200) and more particularly Para-7 of the said judgment. Relying on Para-7 of the said judgment, learned Counsel would submit that who should represent the payee where the payee is a company, or how the payee should be represented where payee is a sole proprietary concern, is not a matter that is governed by Section 142, but by the general law. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that the matter requires consideration. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that it is the case of complainant before the Court that by way of instructions issued in the Circular to all Branch Managers, they were authorised to file complaint. 3 crapn4988.10 According to Counsel, trial Court has seen other Circular. Said Circular was examined and upon examination of the contents of said Circular, the trial Court has recorded finding that complainant Changdeo Mohan Gaikwad was not authorised to file complaint. Counsel for the respondent submitted that, judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant in the case of Shankar Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), has been considered by this Court in Goa State Co- op. Bank Ltd. vs. Kurtarkar Traders reported in 2010(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 121. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the present application. 5. Upon hearing Counsel of both the parties and upon perusal of Para-7 of the judgment in the case of Shankar Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), I am of the prima facie opinion that the matter requires consideration. Hence, the application seeking to leave is allowed. 4 crapn4988.10 6. Registry to register the application, as an appeal. 7. Upon registering the appeal, Admit. 8. Learned Counsel waives notice of admission of appeal, on behalf of respondent. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn4988.10