1 Appln.: 78/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 Housing Development Finance .... Applicants Corporation Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Suhas Joshi with Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the applicants. Mrs. M.R. Tidke, APP for State. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 4th February, 2011. P.C. 1. This application is for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of trial Court dismissing the complaint and acquittal of respondents no. 2 and 3 of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The applicant- Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited filed criminal complaint No.269/SS of 2006 in respect of dishonour of cheque in the sum of Rs.40,000/- issued by respondent no.2, original accused no.1. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Not arranged for”. Thereafter the applicant had issued necessary statutory 2 Appln.: 78/2011 notice. The defence of respondents no. 2 and 3 was of total denial. The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint was not filed by a competent person and as a consequence, it was not maintenable. The applicant being a Corporation, had examined one Mahesh Desai as it’s constituted attorney. The complainant had filed a Photostat copy of power of attorney dated 22nd December 2008 executed by its’ Chief Legal Advisor in favour of Mahesh Desai. The said copy was neither verified from the original by the Court nor its original was listed on record. The trial Court held that the Photostat copy of power of attorney has no value in the eyes of law. Therefore, Mahesh, for want of authority was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant. Perusal of affidavit of examination-in- chief of Mahesh Desai points out another defect in the evidence of the prosecution which is about the proof the document of the power of attorney. The witness merely stated that the same is signed by Mr. Shroff and identified the signature. He however did not depose about the basis of identification of the signature by him. Since the witness is not author of the document of power of attorney, it was necessary for the complainant either to examine the author himself or to examine a person who could personally identify the signature. The trial Court has next noted that the complainant had authorised its Chief Legal Advisor, Mr. S.N. Shroff to execute power of attorney in favour of Mahesh Desai. Admittedly Mr. S.N. Shroff is not one of the directors of the complainant. He is simply another employee of the complainant like Mahesh Desai. In the circumstance, it was necessary for the 3 Appln.: 78/2011 complainant to establish the authority given to Mr. S.N. Shroff to execute the power of attorney in favour of Mahesh Desai. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintenable and dismissed the same. The trial court having taken a probable view of the matter, the application is dismissed. ( SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J )