IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2009 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 1855 OF 2009 VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED THROUGH LEGAL OFFICER RATNA S. S. AMONKAR ... Applicant Versus SHRI. RAMESH MAHABLESHWAR NAIK AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th August, 2009 P.C.:- Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Complainant. The Complainant which is a Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited had filed a complaint against the Respondent/Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with the allegation that a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- given by the accused was dishonoured. The complaint was filed on behalf of the Complainant by Deepak N. Gaude, the Assistant Manager of Cortalim Branch of the said Society pursuant to a letter of authority given by the General Manager of the said Society. On behalf of the Complainant, and in support of the claim, one Mrs. Ratna, a Legal Officer of the Complainant gave her evidence. The complaint came to be dismissed, and the accused acquitted by the learned trial Court by Judgment dated 17-4-2009, and in doing so, the learned trial Court also referred to the Judgment in the case of Alka Toraskar v. Vaishya Urban Co-operative Credit Society(2006(6) ALL MR 397) wherein it was held that a complaint could be filed either by a payee or a holder in due course. The learned trial Court also referred to the Judgment in the case of Ashok Bamto Pagui v. M/s Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Limited and another(2007 ALL MR(Cri) 2238), and also to the case of Om Shakti Scheduled Castes v. M. Venkatesh(2008(66)AIC 414). The import of the aforesaid decisions is that a complaint is required to be filed when it is filed by a Co-operative Society which is a legal entity pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors given in favour of a particular person who files the complaint. Referring to the said letter of authority issued by the General Manager which is produced at Exh.49, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the said Deepak N. Gaude had no authority to file the present complaint, a fact which was admitted by the said witness. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant/Complainant submits that the said Deepak N. Gaude was entitled to depose on behalf of the said Complainant. According to the learned Counsel the expression "depose" as per Wharton's Law Lexicon means to lodge and the expression "to lodge", as per the Concise Oxford Dictionary also means to present(a complaint, appeal, etc.). The learned Counsel therefore submits that when the General Manager gave authority to the said Deepak N. Gaude to depose on behalf of the Complainant, the said Deepak N. Gaude had also authority to file the complaint. Admittedly, and as already stated, the complaint was filed by Deepak N. Gaude pursuant to the letter of authority issued by the General Manager. At no stage of the trial, the said letter of authority was made good by the Complainant by issuing a resolution in his favour ratifying the complaint filed by him. The expression "to depose" and the expression "depose in" any criminal or civil matter cannot mean one and the same thing. To depose in any criminal or civil "matter" could only mean giving evidence in a civil or criminal case filed by the Society. Obviously, there was no resolution given in favour of the said Deepak N. Gaude by the Society to enable him to file the complaint, and in the absence of that, the complaint itself was not maintainable. The dismissal of the complaint, and the acquittal therefore could not be faulted. Application dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.