ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.25672/2017 rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and consequently to allow the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant, who is the petitioner herein, had filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court has taken the cognizance and witnesses are examined before the Trial Court. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the complainant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to summon the Bank Manager of HDRC Bank, Bashyam Circle, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru, for the limited purpose of whether the accused has given the authorization to issue the cheque. The same has been rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, revision petition was filed and the Revisional Court held that revision is not maintainable. Hence, the present petition is filed before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the course of evidence, it is emerged that the accused is not a signatory to the cheque. Hence, the application was filed for summoning the Bank Manager whether any authorization was given to sign the cheque. The same has been rejected on the ground that there is no pleadings in the complaint that a person was authorized to sign the same. The Trial Judge considering the material available on record, found that there is no iota of evidence in order to plead in the complaint and the notice by the complainant with regard to the disputed cheque was signed by the authorized persons of the accused and not by the accused appeared before the Court. Hence, the same was rejected.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is a bar under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon any witness before the Trial Court. Even if assuming that the witness is summoned and examined, that will not create any obligation on part of the accused and the authorized person is also not arraigned as accused. Hence, there cannot be any order to set aside the same.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and having perused the grounds urged in the petition, it is not in dispute that 138 proceedings has been initiated and witnesses are also been examined. When the matter is posted for arguments, at that juncture, the application is filed. On perusal of the application, it is for the limited purpose only to know whether any authorization was given to the Bank permitting the authorized person to issue the cheque on behalf of the accused. It is not in dispute that the cheque is not signed by other than the accused person and the same is emerged in the course of evidence. When such being case, it is appropriate to examine the Bank Manager for the limited purpose to know whether any authorization was given by the accused to issue the cheque. The contention that the authorized signatory is not a party to the proceedings, cannot be accepted at this stage. The Trial Court has to give a finding whether liability can be fixed on the accused on account of the authorized signatory has signed the document and the said fact is also to be proved. In order to prove the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the examination of the Bank Manager is necessary. The Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant to examine the Bank Manager with regard to authorization to sign the cheque. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 29.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.25672/2017 is hereby