JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Ponda for the Complainant and learned Advocate Shri Satyanarayanan for Respondent No.2 – original accused.

2. It is true that while granting leave on 27th March 2023, this Court has crystalised the issue involved in this Appeal. Though the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate has given findings to point Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the complainant, learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent – Accused as point No.1 was answered against the complainant.

3. Point No.2 pertains to proof of liability whereas, Point No.3 pertains to service of demand notice . The trial Magistrate has observed ‘the liability is proved’. The relevant observations find place in paragraph Nos.21 to 24 whereas, learned Magistrate has dealt with in Issue No.3 on the point of notice and its service in paragraph Nos.25 to 34. Whereas, failure of the complainant to prove the authorization has been dealt with in Paragraph Nos.9 to 17.

4. It is submitted during the arguments by learned Advocate Shri Satyanarayanan that the findings by the trial Court on the point of liability and receipt of notice are not challenged and he has restricted his arguments only by supporting the