..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3162 of 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 Mr.Vijaykumar Lalji Vira. ..Applicant. Versus M/s.Oswal Haresh Transport Co. and 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Ms.D.S.Shah, Adv. i/b. Mr.Mayur Narendra & Co. for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in C.C. No.13315/SS/ 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate, acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-Orig.complainant and the learned APP for ..(2).. the State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 3. After perusal of the evidence in the present case, it is seen that the notice of demand was not issued to the accused by the complainant (PW-2) and it was issued to the accused by PW-1 Lalji Vira, father of the complainant. No doubt in the evidence, it has come on record that PW-2 Lalji Vira is the Constituted Attorney of the complainant. However, it is seen that the notice of demand was issued on 10.11.2005 and the deed of Power of Attorney was executed on 14.12.2005. Moreover, there is no reference in the deed of Power of Attorney that PW-1 Lalji Vira has been authorised to give instructions on behalf of the complainant (PW-1) to the Advocate for issuance of demand notice. In the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to hold that PW-1 Lalchand Vira was authorised by the complainant (PW-1) in respect of issuance of demand notice. Moreover, in the present case it is seen that there is delay of ten days in filing the complaint. The complainant has not applied for condonation of ..(3).. delay in filing the said complaint. 4. Looking to the above facts, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. On perusal of the evidence, I find that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)