-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1504 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1504 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 1504 OF 2008 M/s. New Fire Eng. Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Bhupendra Parekh & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Sunil V. Chaubal for the Applicant. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE DATE DATE : 18TH JULY, 2008. : 18TH JULY, 2008. : 18TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard learned Counsel. Perused the Judgment under challenge. In paragraph 12, the learned Judge has referred that there was no copy of resolution tendered in the Court authorising PW-1 Ketan Damniwala to file complaint or to depose. The learned Counsel representing the Petitioner/Original Complainant from the record could not point out that there was any resolution or that it was filed in the Court at the time of lodging the complaint. The letter of authorisation dated 22nd January 2004 at Exhibit ‘D’ issued by the Director R.A. Shah also does not specify as to how the authorisation is confirmed in favour of Ketan Damniwala. 2. It is absolutely beyond the scope of complainant under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. I am not inclined about the request -:2:- of applicant to get the promissory note examined by hand writing expert, as it is an independent issue. However, on entire analysis of the Judgment under challenge, the view taken by the learned Judge is one of the possible view and therefore, no fault can be pointed to the findings of acquittal. 3. Hence, leave refused. (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)