IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2009 THE BAGAYATDAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH OFFICER AND GENERAL MANAGER SUBODH ... Appellant Versus SHRI ASHOK PISSO GAUDE ... Respondent Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 3rd August, 2010 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. The complainant has filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by judgment/order dated 26/02/2009. 2. The main ground of acquittal is that the complaint was not maintainable for non-production of proper authorisation to file a complaint. 3. There is no dispute that on 9/01/2009 parties sought adjournment to file written arguments and the matter was fixed on 21/01/2009 on which date the complainant filed an application seeking leave to produce a resolution of the Board of Directors dated 20/12/2008 by which Board of Directors had authorised Bal A. Sahakari to file complaints. That application came to be rejected by the learned trial Court by order dated 30/01/2009, observing that the resolution had no connection with the complaint. However, it appears that a wrong copy of the resolution also dated 20/12/2008 was annexed to the said application. On behlaf of the complainant another resolution is produced dated 20/12/2008 by which Shri Subodh Verenkar and Shri Dayanand Chari have been authorised to file criminal complaints. The complaint was filed on 31/03/2006. Whether the resolution dated 20/12/2008 will cure the defects, if any, is the matter which would be required to be decided by the learned trial Court. It appears that honestly and inadvertently a wrong copy was annexed to the application on account of a mistake of the advocate appearing for the complainant, as submitted by Shri Diniz. In my view, the complainant ought not to suffer only because a wrong copy of the resolution was annexed to the application dated 21/01/2009. In the circumstances, an opportunity is given to the complainant to produce the resolution dated 20/12/2008 authorising Shri Subodh Verenkar and Shri Dayanand Chari along with application dated 21/01/2009. 4. The learned trial Court is hereby directed to hear afresh the complainant and the accused on the said application dated 21/01/2009 in the light of resolution dated 20/12/2008 authorising Subodh Verenkar and another and then decide the case in accordance with law. 5. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment/order acquitting the accused is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the learned trial Court to decide afresh the said application dated 21/01/2009 in the light of the resolution dated 20/12/2008 in favour of Shri Subodh Verenkar and Shri Dayand Chari. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 23/08/2010 at 10.00 a.m. Records and proceedings be sent back before the said date. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH