( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23. 4. 1998 in C. C. No. 125 of 1994, on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad (Trial Court), wherein the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (for short "the Act"), against the respondent/accused herein, was held to be not maintainable in law, and the accused was acquitted under Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "cr. P. C. "), for the offence under section 138 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE case of the complainant was that the complainant, being a company, by name M/s. Sagar Cements Limited, carrying on business in cement and it supplied cement to its dealer, who is the accused herein. In the course of the said business, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 312354, dated 24. 11. 1993, for Rs. 99,000/-, towards the outstanding balance of Rs. 10,28,859-20 ps. When the complainant company presented the said cheque into the bank, the same was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". In spite of the legal notice, dated 12. 1. 1994, issued to the accused, the accused has not arranged for the payment, resulting which the complainant company constrained to file the present complaint by invoking the provisions under Section 138 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE complainant is a limited company, representing by its Chief commercial Manager-cum-Administrative officer, M. Vinod Kumar S/o. Vasantha Rao. The Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence and immediately thereof, the said Vinod Kumar had resigned to his job and left the complainant company. Thereafter, there was no representation before the Trial Court on behalf of the complainant company. Under those circumstances, the complainant company filed Crl. M. P. No. 2721 of 1996, seeking permission of the Court to allow one Kanuri Prasad who is the General Manager of the company, to represent the matter and prosecute the case. The said application was disposed of on 3. 10. 1996 with the following order:"in the result, petition is allowed to the effect that the petitioner is only permitted to look after the proceedings of the case. But, he has no right to depose before the Court on behalf of the complainant. To that effect, petition is allowed. "

( 4 ) FROM the above order, it is clear that the said Kanuri Prasad, General manager of the complainant company, can represent on behalf of the company and look after the proceedings of the case. However, it was made clear that he has no right to depose before the Court on behalf of the complainant. Thereafter, the said Vinod Kumar, who filed the present complaint, was examined before the Trial court as PW-1. However, the Trial Court, while disposing of the case without going into the other aspects of Section 138 read with Section 139 of the Act, dealt with the aspect as to who can represent the company and whether the complaint suffers from any legal infirmity. In this regard, the Trial Court held as under:"now the question arises as to whether the complainant suffered from any legal infirmity. PW-1 who is the then Chief commercial Manager deposed that he was authorized by the Managing Director to file the present complaint on the ground that the cheque in question issued by the accused towards part payment of outstanding balance to a tune of Rs. 10,28,859-20 ps but it was bounced. In his cross-examination, pw-1 categorically stated that the accused paid certain amounts towards due amount for the company, but it was not relating to the cheque in question. Ex. D-1 is FIR issued by banjara Hills P. S. on a complaint made by the complainant herein and it is disclosing that the accused cheated the company by issuing the three cheques each for Rs. 99,000/ -. In fact, the cheque in question was not figured in the said FIR. When certain payments made by the accused towards outstanding balance payable by the accused, it is not known that the said payment accounted towards wh