Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties.

2. The complainant has filed the present application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide Judgment dated 29-1-2010.

3. There is no dispute that the complainant is a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The complaint was filed by Shri Nikhil Desai on behalf of the complainant- Society who was the complainant's Acting CEO. The complaint was filed for a dishonour of a cheque dated 2-11-2006 for Rs.6,00,000/- which when presented for payment was returned dishonoured for lack of insufficient funds and a legal notice sent to the accused was not complied with by the accused.

4. As said, the complaint was filed by Shri Nikhil Desai on behalf of the complainant-Society. The said Nikhil Desai was then replaced by Shri Venancio Furtado who had deposed on behalf of the complainant. The said Venancio furtado was the General Manager.

5. The learned trial Court, acquitted the accused, interalia, on the ground that the said Venancio Furtado who was the General Manager of the complainant had admitted that the complainant was a registered Society and he had not produced any authorization to depose in the case. It appears that reliance was placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the Case of Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. v. Raj Kurnar (2007 Cr.L.J.1377) in support of the submission that the said Venancio Furtado being the General Manager did not require any special authorization. However, the learned J.M.F.C. relying on the case of Atka Toraskarv. The Vaishya Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.(2006(2) Born. C.R.(Cri) 717) as well as on the Case of The Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Kurtarkar Traders, unreported decision in Criminal Appeal Nos. 35,50 and 55 of 2009 dismissed the complaint on the ground that Venancio Furtado had not even produced his appointment letter to show that he was the General Manager of the complainant-Society much less his power of attorney or his valid authorization from the Entertainment Society of Goa, and, therefore the complaint should fail. After the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant has filed an application dated 20-12-2010 to produce Order dated 13-11-2009 by which the said Venancio Furtado was transferred and posted as a General Manager of the complainant's Society.

6. It is the contention of Shri R. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, that the said Order dated 13-11-2009 was not produced under a bona fide belief that the same was not required before the Court to be produced in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Co. and others (1997(2) Bom.C.R. 267). Here, it may be stated that, in that case this Court had noted that PW1/N. R. Koramne who was the manager of the concerned Branch of the plaintiff-Bank had given evidence on the basis of the documents.

It was therefore held that anybody could come and give evidence in Court provided that he is acquainted with the facts of the case. At the same time it was clearly stated that a power of attorney or authorization would be required for filing the plaint or signing the plaint or signing a written statement (emphasis supplied).

7. On the other hand, Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that there was no reason for the complainant not to have produced the said Order dated 13-11-2009. Learned Counsel submits that the explanation that it was not produced due to bona fide belief cannot be accepted. Shri Menezes has also placed reliance on the said case of Alka Toraskar v. Vaishya Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. and another (supra) as well as Ashok Bampto Pagui v. Agenda Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. and another (2007(4) Bom.C.R. 465), The Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Kurtarkar Traders as well as the case of Mamatadevi v. Vijaykumar Mamraj Ag