1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 373 of 2011 Jaya Advertising Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra & Another ...Respondents Mr. R. Sathyanarayan for Applicant. Mr. V.B.Kondedeshmukh, APP for State. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mr.M.S.Kulkarni, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in C.C.No. 1075/SS/2007. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by his judgment dated 30th September, 2009 acquitted the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant-complainant has filed criminal appeal and has sought leave by this application. 2 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. R. Satyanarayan, on behalf of the applicant. The complaint came to be filed by M/s. Jaya Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and according to the complainant Mr.Shailendra S. Pendse who gave evidence on behalf of the complainant was authorized to file the said complaint. After having perused the impugned judgment it is clear that the proper resolution authorizing Mr.Pendse to file complaint was not annexed to the complaint nor it was mentioned in the body of the complaint, and it was also not filed at the time of evidence of Mr. Pendse. It appears that it was sought to be produced at a later stage, little before the judgment. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Sathyanarayan, appearing on behalf of the applicant, submitted that no opportunity was given to the applicant to produce the resolution and thereafter the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted the respondent for want of proper evidence. In my view, it was the duty of the concerned officer of the plaintiff to bring on record the resolution duly passed, at the time of lodgment of the complaint, and reference should have been made to it in the case or evidence given by the person concerned. In the absence of this material, merely because at a later point of time the said resolution 3 came to be produced is not sufficient to accept the stand of the complainant that the complaint was filed by an authorized person. What is required to be filed at the inception must be done at that stage. 4. In my view, no infirmity is found in the judgment and there is no need to interfere with the judgment. Application is dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)