IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2009 THE LOKMANYA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED THROUGH CO-ORDINATOR PRAKASH J. SURLAKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. ABDUL RASHID GIRINGHKOP AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri R. Menezes, Advocate for Respondents Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 26th October, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. This is a Complainant's appeal and is directed against the Judgment dated 28th November, 2008 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-Da-Gama, acquitting the Accused under section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. 3. At the hearing of this Appeal, Shri Menezes, the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent/Accused has submitted that the Complainant was a Multipurpose Co-operative Society and could have acted in filing the complaint pursuant to a resolution given in favour of a particular officer to file the complaint or depose on behalf of the Complainant. Learned Counsel points out to the Resolution produced by Shri Prakash J. Surlakar who is examined on behalf of the Complainant and submits that the said Resolution does not at all authorize him either to file the complaint or to depose on behalf of the Complainant in a case filed against the accused. Learned Counsel submits that the said Resolution authorizes only filing of the case against one Shri Nagesh Tulsidas Rajput. 4. I am entirely in agreement with the submissions made by the Learned Counsel. The Resolution dated 24th April, 2008 produced at Exhibit C-7 does not at all refer to filing a complaint against the accused. It refers to filing a criminal case against Shri Nagesh T. Rajput. 5. The facts of the case are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Alka Toraskar (2006 (6) All MR 397) and other decisions of this Court in that regard. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. ars