1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2066 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF Mr. Bhupesh Mohanlal Rathod .. Applicant. vs. Mr.Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr ..Respondent. .... Mr.Rupesh Sohoni h/f K.V.Tembe for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule,A.P.P.for the State. .... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATE : 16th July 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rupesh Sohoni for the applicant. None for respondent no.1 though already served. It is the leave petition to file appeal against the acquittal of respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. Perused the reasoning given by the Trial Magistrate while acquitting respondent no.1 for dishonour of eight cheques of Rs.20,000/-each. It appears that Trial Magistrate was influenced by a so called technical lacuna in the matter as the applicant was not authorised to file complaint on behalf of the Company. The accused is allegedly liable to pay about Rs.1,60,000/-to the 2 complainant. Though the Trial Magistrate ha s referred to the resolution of the Company signed by its one of the Directors, which is Ex.41 still the Court did not accept that the complainant had authority to give evidence on behalf of the Company. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the in the original complaint itself, it is alleged that the complainant has filed the complaint in individual capacity on behalf of the bank. 3. Considering the above factual position, in the opinion of this Court, there is an issue to be decided in appeal before this Court in order to ascertain the correctness and legality of the order of acquittal. Hence, leave petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of. Appeal is admitted. Call for R.& P. (A.R. JOSHI,J.)