THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.455 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Complainant against the judgment dated 04.01.2006 in C.C.No.167 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy whereby and whereunder the Accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows: The Complainant is in the business of manufacturing chemicals. The Accused is a Commission Agent between the Complainant and the Seller of raw materials used for manufacture of chemicals by the Complainant. The Accused used to book orders and collect payments on behalf of the Seller from the Complainant. In the process, the Accused collected the sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Complainant and did not pay to his Principal Supplier. The Principal Supplier demanded the payment from the Complainant and received directly although the same was paid to the Accused prior to the demand raised by the Principal Supplier. The Complainant thereafter insisted the Accused to return the amount paid to him. The Accused issued cheques bearing Nos.451202 to 451205 dated 15.11.2004, 15.12.2004, 15.1.2005 and 15.2.2005 for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. But the Accused requested the complainant to hold all the cheques till the end of February,2005 so as to enable him to arrange funds. Accordingly, the Complainant waited till 2.3.2005 and then deposited all the four cheques in the Bank. All the cheques were bounced on 3.3.2005 and they were returned with memos endorsing ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant informed the same to the Accused. Then, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 12.3.2005 under Section 138 of the Act and the same was received by the Accused. As the cheques were dishonoured, the Accused is liable for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act. 3. During the course of trial, in support of his case, the Complainant examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence and the factual aspects of the matter, dismissed the complaint acquitting the Accused under Section 138 of the Act on the ground that PW.1 was not specifically authorised to file the complaint. Challenging the same, this appeal is preferred. 5. It is seen that the cheques-Exs.P.1 to P.4 for Rs.1,75,000/- issued by the Accused to discharge the legally enforceable debt to the Complainant were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the Accused. Thereafter, the Complainant initiated proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. But, it is the case of the Accused that PW. 1 is not authorised person to file the complaint and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. PW.1 in his cross- examination admitted that he has not filed any document to show that the Complainant Company is a private limited company and that he is the Managing Director of the Company. Further, the Articles of Association of the Complainant Company was not filed. Further, no document was filed showing that PW.1 is authorised to file the complaint either at the time of filing of complaint or during the trial. True copy of Resolution, which was filed subsequent to hearing the arguments, authorising PW.1 to file complaint cannot be looked into as it was not marked. In view of the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or otherwise so as to call for interference from this court. 6. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Date: .06.2010 Stp