C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The appellant/complainant preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2004 passed in C.C. No. 190 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, wherein the trial Court acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

Though a private complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant against eight accused, the case was taken on file only against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The allegations in the complaint would show that the complainant company filed a complaint through P. Umarnaheswara Rao, alleging that the first accused availed a bridge loan of Rs. 20.00 lakhs against their public issue for the purpose of implementation of their product vide loan agreement dated 16.05.1996. It is stated that to liquidate their part liability the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/-. The said cheque when presented for collection on 19.02.1999 was returned by Bank of Madhura Limited, K.J. Market, Koti Branch, Hyderabad on 27.02.1999 for the reason "insufficient funds". The said fact was intimated to the complainant on 10.03.1999. A statutory notice came to be issued to the accused No. 1 calling upon him to pay the amount in lieu of dishonoured cheque. It is stated that though the notices were served on accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and intimation was forwarded to accused No. 2 on 26.03.1999, they have failed to pay the amount due. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint.

4. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 190 of 1999 against accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, and summons were issued to the accused. On appearance, of accused Nos. 1 and 2, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter they were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of his case, the complainant examined P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P15.

6. After closure of the complainant's evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing against them, but the same was denied by the accused.

7. In order to prove their defence, accused No. 2 examined himself as DW 1 and got marked Exs. D1 and D9.

8. After considering the material available on record, the trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has no valid authorization to file a complaint against the accused and that there was no proper service of notice on the accused. The Court also held that the blank cheque which was given to the complainant as security was misused by the complainant and that there was no legally enforceable debt.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents/accused.

10. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the trial Court are without any basis and as such the same needs to be reversed.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused supports the findings of the trial Court contending that there was no proper authorization to file a complaint.

12. The main question that arises for consideration is whether P.W. 1 by name P. Uma Maheswara Rao was duly authorised to file the complaint or not?

13. To decide as to whether P.W. 1 was having proper authorization to file the complaint and represent the complainant company, it may be necessary to refer his evidence.

14. In his evidence, P.W. 1 deposed that he was working as Legal Assistant of T.G.V. Group Legal Cell. The complainant company gave him authorization to represent the company and file the case. Ex. A1 is the authorization letter said to have been given to him. During cross examination, he admits that he does not know how many directors are there in