Sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3821 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Excel Polyprint Industries ..Applicant. v/s. Shashikant K. Raul and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, adv. for the Applicant. Ms Mallika Ingale, APP for the respondent no.2. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the R.No.3. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 26th September, 2011 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was the case of the complainant that the accused nos.1 and 2, who were the partners of the partnership firm had received certain goods and had issued cheque for repayment of Rs.1 lakh, which was dishonoured and in-spite of notice, they had failed to make the payment. The trial Court acquitted the accused on two grounds. Firstly, the complainant is the proprietorship concern of which one Mrs. Todkar is the proprietor. However, the complaint was filed through Shri Deepak S. Todkar in his capacity of manager and employee of the complainant. The learned Sns 2 Magistrate noted that no power of attorney or authorisation was pleaded or produced to show that the said Deepak Todkar had authority to file complaint on behalf of the proprietorship concern. Second ground was that when said Deepak Todkar in the cross-examination was asked to produce certain documents in respect of transaction in respect of which disputed cheque was issued, he flatly refused to produce documents, therefore, adverse inference could be drawn against the complainant. 3 The learned counsel for the complainant points out from the record that on behalf of the accused, demand draft of Rs.1 lakh was offered for settlement but that was not acceptable to the complainant. He contends that this shows that the respondent was liable to make payment and merely because record about transaction was not produced, adverse inference could not be drawn. Even though I find some substance in this argument, the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out how the complaint itself was tenable when it was filed by an employee of the proprietorship concern without any power of attorney or authority. As the complaint was filed by a person, who was unauthorised, on that ground itself, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. I do not find any reason to disagree with the trial Court. Therefore, I do not see any reason to grant leave to prefer appeal. Sns 3 4 In the result, leave to prefer appeal refused. Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)