1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 117 of 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2011 Chatrapati Nashik Jilha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit .. Applicant Versus Smt.Meera Nandkumar Agarwal & Another ...Respondents Mr. Sagar Kasar for Applicant. Mr. V.R.Bhosale, APP for the State Mr.Rameshwar Gite for the Respondent No.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent faced a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Court Room No.3, Nashik in Summary Criminal Case No.7000 of 2006. The respondent faced the trial and by judgment dated 22nd November, 2010 the respondent was 2 acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Against this order dated 22nd November, 2010 the complainant, i.e. the applicants have filed this appeal and have sought leave vide this application. According to the applicant, Mr. Charudutt C. Pagare was appointed as Manager to look after the litigation of the applicant, namely the Credit Society, and according to the applicant, said Mr. Pagare was authorized to attend to the litigations of the credit society by virtue of resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 10th January, 2006. 2. I have perused the impugned judgment and have heard learned Counsel Mr. Kasar for the applicants. It is true that the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class has upheld the stand of the applicant as regards the important ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the complaint has been dismissed and the respondent is acquitted on the ground that the filing of the complaint against the respondent was not in proper manner, in as much as the applicants have not been able to prove that Mr. Pagare was authorized to file the complaint. 3 3. Learned Counsel Mr.Kasar, appearing on behalf of the applicants drew my attention to the copy of the resolution dated 10th January, 2006 at Exhibit B. According to him, this resolution was duly passed and has empowered Mr. Pagare to file cases and attend the litigations. 4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, has dealt with the question of authority of said Mr. Pagare and has observed that the applicants have not placed even this resolution on record at the time of lodgement of the complaint or even thereafter at the first available opportunity. The applicants have failed to show that Mr. Pagare was empowered to file the complaint. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is no need to interfere. Application is accordingly dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)