1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3791 OF 2009 Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. .... Applicant Pune Vs. Shri Dayanand Nagojirao .... Respondents Bhosale & Anr. Mr. Sameer Tambekar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.V. Sutar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V.B. Konde­Deshmukh, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 2nd July, 2010 P.C. 1. This application is filed under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th June 2009, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.8), Kolhapur dismissed the complaint filed by the bank on the ground that the Branch Manager of the bank who led the evidence on its behalf had no authority to do so. It is seen that the authority given by the bank to the Manager was limited to 2 filing of the complaint and attending the dates of the court. It did not include the authority to depose in the matter. Mr. Tambekar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court was not correct in holding that the specific authority was required for the purpose of deposing by the Manager in the complaint. According to him, the authority given would extend for the purpose of evidence. The first point for consideration raised by the learned trial Judge was regarding the authority of the Manager who led the evidence. He has decided the point against the applicant by giving reasons for the same. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and decision of ’ the learned Single Judge of this Court in arriving at this decision. As has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent and as has been held by the learned J.M.F.C., the authority to file complaint and attending to its dates in the court, can be given by the bank to any person. However, authority to give evidence is required to be given to such person, who has knowledge of the facts of the case. Therefore, the authority to file the 3 complaint cannot be extended to authority to depose in the court. There is no infirmity whatsoever in the view taken by the learned JMFC. The appellant has not made out any case for leave to appeal. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)