1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Criminal Revision Application No.37 of 2011 And Criminal Misc. application no.102 of 2011. Mr. Rohan Arlekar, S/O Rimanath Arlekar, Major in Age, R/O H.No.GL/93, Near Maruti Temple, Headland Sada, Mormugao-Goa. (Presently in the Judicial Jail, Vasco-Sada,Goa) …. Applicant V e r s u s 1. The Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Having its Office Near Prince Bakery, Headland Sada, Mormugao, Goa Herein represented by its Authorized Representative Mr. Sachin Patkar 2. State of Goa (Through Public Prosecutor) ….. Respondents Mr. Suraj R. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor of Respondent no.2. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Reserved on: 28/6/2011 Pronounced on :30/6/2011. 2 ORDER: Heard Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 6/5/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal No.82/2009 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 31/10/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco in Criminal Case no.12/OA/NIA/2009/D has been dismissed. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- and in default to 3 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. Although several grounds have been urged in the memo of revision, Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of the petitioner restricted his challenge to the impugned order only on one ground. Mr. Naik submitted that the complaint filed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act was not maintainable in as much as Mr. Sachin Patkar who had filed the complaint had no authority either to file the complaint or to depose on behalf of the complainant and therefore the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is not sustainable in law. In support of this submission, Mr. Naik placed reliance upon the following judgments: i) Pandurang Eknath Patil Vs. Chandrakant Trimbak Deshmukh, 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. 146. 4 ii) Mrs. Alka Toraskar Vs. The Vaishya Urnab Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd & Anr., 2006(6) ALL MR 397. iii) Order dated 6/1/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.97 of 2010. iv) Order dated 22/6/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Misc. application no.5/2009. v) Satish & Co. Vs. S.R. Trades and others, 1997 (4) ALL MR (Journal) 58. 4. Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 submitted that the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of respondent no.1 clearly authorizes Mr. Sachin Patkar to sign and file the complaint and to give evidence and as such, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner has no merit. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions , perused the record and the judgments relied upon. I do not deem it necessary to refer to any of the 5 authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner. What emerges from the authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner is that a complaint on behalf of the Society can be filed by a person duly authorized by the Society and if the complaint is filed without any authority, the complaint filed is not maintainable and consequently the conviction of the accused is also not sustainable. 6. The question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the resolution taken by the Managing Committee of the Society authorizes Mr. Sachin Patkar to file the complaint in the present case. The copy of the resolution has been produced on record. The resolution reads thus: “It is hereby unanimously resolved that Mr. Sachin J. Patkar, is authorized to sign and file complaint on behalf of the society, to appoint Advocate, to give necessary instruction to the advocate, to issue legal notice, to swear 6 Affidavit, to give documentary evidence, to depose, to make necessary application and to withdraw/compound the matter so filed. Proposed by : Shri Dattaram G. Dhargalkar Seconded by : Shri Rawalu Y. Naik. Resolution passed unanimously” 7. Upon bare perusal of the resolution it is clear that the Managing Committee of respondent no.1, inter alia authorized Mr. Sachin Patkar to file complaint, to swear affidavit, to give documentary evidence, to depose and to compound the matter. No doubt, in the resolution it has not been mentioned that Mr. Patkar has been authorized to file a particular complaint and the tenor of the resolution discloses that it is an authority given by the Society to Mr. Patkar to file complaint etc. on behalf of the Society. 8. In my considered opinion, no fault can be found with the resolution taken by the Society. The Society was perfectly justified in authorizing Mr. Sachin Patkar to file 7 complaint on behalf of the Society and it was not necessary for the Society to mention that it had authorized Mr. Patkar to file complaint against a particular accused. Therefore, in my view, the resolution taken by the Managing Committee on 19/11/2008 clearly authorizes Mr. Sachin Patkar to file a complaint on behalf of the Society including the complaint filed against the present petitioner. I, therefore, find no merit in the submission of Mr. Naik that the complaint filed by Mr. Sachin Patkar was not valid and consequently the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Since no other point has been urged in the revision application, the revision is liable to be rejected and is hereby summarily rejected. 9. In view of the dismissal of the revision application Criminal Misc. Application no.102 of 2011 also stands disposed of. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-.