( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1191 OF 2009 M/s Swastik Bulk Carriers APPLICANT VERSUS M/s Rahul Construction & Co. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The application is for leave to appeal under section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The applicant is original complainant and is aggrieved due to acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable ( 2 ) Instruments Act. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent due to technical flaws viz. absence of proper authorisation to Yogesh Shivajirao Ugalmugale, who claimed to be Manager of the complainant/applicant and due to absence of proper evidence regarding legal entity of the respondent. The learned Magistrate observed that there was no documentary evidence to show whether the respondent is a partnership firm and is duly registered as such. It was contention of the applicant that in the reply notice, the liability to pay was admitted by the respondent to the extent of a part of the amount. There is no dispute about the fact that the cheque was issued by the respondent and was dishonoured. Considering these aspects, the questions raised in the appeal are required to be duly considered. In my view, this is a fit case in which leave to appeal is required to be granted. Consequently, the application is allowed. Leave to appeal is granted. 4. The appeal be registered. ( 3 ) 5. The appellant to furnish private paper book within ten (10) weeks. Mr. Hon, learned advocate, waives service for the respondent. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1191-09