* 1 * Cri.Revn.Appln.72.2011 10/2/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2011 W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2011 [FOR BAIL] IN CRIMINAL REV. APPPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2011 Shivaji Mahadev Mane .......Applicant V/S. Hutatma Sahakari Bank Ltd and anr. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr A.A. Desai, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State­respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 10 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Revision Application challenges concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court of conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable * 2 * Cri.Revn.Appln.72.2011 10/2/2011 Instruments Act in Summary Criminal Case No. 2766 of 2006. Respondent no.1 is a co­operative Bank. It had extended loan in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/­ to the applicant. Towards part repayment of that loan, the applicant had given cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/­ drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra dated 27th September, 2005. When the cheque was presented for payment by respondent no.1, it returned dishonoured for the reaon insufficient funds . “ ” Thereafter, statutory notice was served upon the applicant and on non­payment of the amount of the cheque within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the notice, complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, came to be filed. By the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2008 the trial Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and directed payment of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/­, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the applicant preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2008 to the Court of Sessions. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment and * 3 * Cri.Revn.Appln.72.2011 10/2/2011 order dated 31st January, 2011. Therefore, the present Revision Application has been filed. 2. The only contention pressed in the Revision Application relates to the authority to the Branch Manager of respondent no.1, one Mr. Suresh R. Shinde for giving evidence in the Court in support of the complaint. There were two resolutions produced before the Court giving authority to the Branch Manager. The first resolution is dated 26th April, 2006. The resolution states that the nine borrowers listed in the resolution had given cheques towards repayment of the loan amount which cheques had been dishonoured and the Branch Manager, Suresh R. Shinde was being given authority to take legal action against the borrowers. The applicant is at serial number 7 in the list of borrowers. This resolution gave complete authority to the Branch Manager of the bank to do every act in the course of taking legal action against the applicant for dishonour of the cheque. Thereafter, on 31st August, 2007 there was another Resolution. This Resolution, in addition to the Branch Manager, Suresh Shinde, authorised two * 4 * Cri.Revn.Appln.72.2011 10/2/2011 more persons i.e. Shrikant Narayan Chavan and Baswant Mahadev Bharti to do several acts mentioned in the resolution relating to the court proceedings. The different acts mentioned therein include filing court proceedings and conduct the same right up to the stage of final appeal. This authority given would also undoubtedly include authority to give evidence in the proceedings, because without this authority the person authorised will not be able to conduct the proceedings at all. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the authority given to Mr. Shinde ought have in terms included authority to give evidence. He relies upon a decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Alka Toraskar V/s. Vaishya Urban Co­op Credit Society Ltd & anr. reported in 2006(2) Bom. C.R.(Cri.) page 717 and in particular the following observations at para­12. When the complainant s witness the said Shirodkar was cross­ “ ’ examined on the said Resolution/Authority letter, the complainant s witness admitted that the said Resolution ’ authorised him to attend Court cases and not to depose on oath. It is contended by learned Counsel on behalf of the accused that this point was raised before both the Courts below. The learned JMFC merely observed that the complainant produced on record true extract of the Resolution authorising * 5 * Cri.Revn.Appln.72.2011 10/2/2011 Gaurish Shirodkar to attend the Court on behalf of the Society. There is no whisper about the said Resolution/Letter of Authority in the Judgment of the learned Appellate Court, which otherwise also is very cryptic. The said Resolution did not authorise the said Gaurish P. Shirodkar, the recovery officer of the complainant­Co­operative Society, either to file a complaint on behalf of the complainant, which is a separate legal entity or to depose in support of the complainant. A complaint under Section 142 of the Act can be filed either by the payee or the holder in due course.” The judgment also quotes the authority given to Shirodkar. The authority given was limited to attending any court/ABN cases on behalf of the Society against the defaulters or loanee members. As has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, the basic difference between the authority given in the decision cited and the case in hand is that Shirodkar in the decision cited was a Recovery Officer and not an employee of the Co­operative Society. The Recovery Officer being an individual separate from the Co­operative Society, needed a specific authority to depose in the complaint. In the present case, Mr. Shinde has been the Branch Manager of the bank and in any case, there is a specific authority given to him. Therefore, I find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the revision applicants. The learned counsel for the applicant, has in * 6 * Cri.Revn.Appln.72.2011 10/2/2011 fairness, not advanced any submissions as regards the concurrent findings of facts in the two judgments. Even otherwise, I find no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgments. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. 4. With the dismissal of the Revision Application, the application for bail being Criminal Application No.49 of 2011 does not survive. The same is disposed off as infructuous. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]