The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors were valid and specifically gave power to launch criminal action. The Court also followed the directions of the Apex Court to transfer the cases to the courts having territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. In both these appeals, common questions of facts and law are raised and therefore taken up for final disposal together. The learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that both these matters could be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2015 is challenging the judgment dated 21/10/2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, South Goa Margao whereby the judgment of conviction dated 27/03/2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,Quepem in Criminal Case No.103/NI/2010/B was quashed and set aside and the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.

3. Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2018 is challenging the judgment dated 17/06/2017 in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2013 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, South Goa, Margao thereby allowing the said appeal and accordingly quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Quepem in Criminal Case No.38/NI/2009/B. The respondent/accused was accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. In both, the matters appellant is the same i.e. The Quepem Urban Credit Society whereas the respondents are different. However, since common grounds are raised, both these matters are taken together for disposal.

5. Heard Mr. Abhay Nachinolkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Gaurish Nagvenkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2.

6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, I have perused the entire record and particularly the judgments and reasoning of the learned Magistrate and that of the First Appellate Court.

7. Shri Abhay Nachinolkar, appearing for the appellants in both the matters submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting both the accused persons erred in accepting the contentions raised in the grounds and more particularly, disbelieving the authority given to the witness to file the complaint. He, therefore, submitted that the question in both the appeals is whether a witness had authority to file complaint.

8. Learned counsel Shri Nachinolkar then submitted that in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2018, apart from the above question, there is additional ground wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that the learned Magistrate at Quepem had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

9. While elaborating his arguments, learned counsel Shri Nachinolkar pointed out the resolution passed by the complainant in favour of PW1 and submitted that the word "proceed" means to start or initiate the proceedings and not to continue with the proceedings already filed, as tried to be interpreted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In this respect, he placed reliance on the dictionary meaning of the word "proceed" and claimed that the actual meaning of the word "proceed" is to institute and conduct legal action or begin the course of action. He, therefore, submitted that the resolution gives power to PW1 to begin the proceedings thereby instituting complaint and thereafter adducing the evidence to that effect on behalf of the complainant.

10. Learned counsel Shri Nachinolkar submitted that leaving aside the power of attorney produced on record, the resolution itself is sufficient enough to give power to the complainant/PW1 to start the proceedings. He, therefore, invited attention to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as far as filing the complaint. He submitted that there are no two views possible in order to interpret the word "proceed" as found in the resolution and, therefore, observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge contrary to the dictionary meaning have to be discarded and set aside.

11. Learned counsel Shri Nachinolkar then submitted th