crapln1311.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1311 OF 2010. Shri Vyas Dhanvarsha Sahakari Bank Ltd., Yawal. .. APPLICAMT. VERSUS Sanjay Bhaurao Neve. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri Satyajit Bora, Advocate for applicant. Shri Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate holding for Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 19th January, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the issues framed by the trial Court, which read, thus: "1) Whether it is established by the complainant that the impugned cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of any existing debt and that the same was dis- crapln1311.10 2 honoured? Finding: Yes. 2) Whether accused proved that the complaint is bad in law for want of authorization to the complainant Bank Manager to file the present complaint and depose before court? Finding: Yes." 3. The learned Counsel for applicant, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has answered the first issue in favour of the complainant. However, the issue no.2 has been answered in favour of the accused, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Peth Vadgaon vs. Shri Narayan Pandurang Koregaonkar & anr., reported in 2008 ALL M.R. (Cri) 2511, and arrived to the conclusion that the Manager was not authorized to file the complaint. The Counsel for the applicant submitted that the reliance placed by the trial Court in case of Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Urban Co- op. Bank Ltd. (supra) is not correct position in law. The Supreme Court in case of Shankar Finance and Investments v/s State of Andhra crapln1311.10 3 Pradesh, reported in 2008 LawSuit(SC) 2200, in para 7 has stated that once the complaint is in the name of the `payee' and is in writing, the requirements of section 142 are fulfilled. Who should represent the payee where the payee is a company, or how the payee should be represented where payee is a sole proprietary concern, is not a matter that is governed by section 142, but by the general law. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Shankar Finance and Investments (supra), this application deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) and submitted that even the Manager, who was prosecuting the case on behalf of the applicant, has not rectified the mistake of not having authorization letter during the pendency of the complaint. Therefore, application may be crapln1311.10 4 rejected. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Shankar Finance and Investments (supra) and more particularly, paragraph 7 thereof, in my opinion, prima facie, it appears that the reliance placed by the trial Court on the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) is not correct. The matter, therefore, needs consideration. 6. Hence, the application is allowed. Leave to file appeal is granted. Registry to register this application as appeal. 7. Appeal admitted. Call for Record & Proceedings of the case. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*