( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to quash the proceedings in CC no. 29 of 1999 OB the file of the Special judicial I Class Magistrate, Mobile Court, vizianagaram.

( 2 ) THE allegations, according to the complaint, are that the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are businessmen and in their business transactions the petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos. 710222 and 710223 dated 26-10-1996 for Rs. 43,450-56 and Rs. 1,07,000/- respectively. On presentation of the cheques, they were bounced with an endorsement "referred to drawer". After complying with the formalities as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 1 st respondent herein filed a complaint which was registered and taken on file as cc No. 29 of 1999 on the file of the additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, vizianagaram, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act.

( 3 ) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner herein who is the accused in the aforementioned case i. e. , CC No. 29 of 1999 mainly on the ground that the Manager of the 1st respondent-firm vi:. , Sri Ramesh kumar Gupta, is not authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the said firm M/s. Shraman Traders and Industries (P) limited, as there is no averment in the complaint to the effect that the Manager is authorised to file the complaint; nor there is any document to establish that he is authorised to do so and as such it is an abuse of the process of Court and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied on a judgment of this Court in M/s. Swastic Coaters Private limited v. M/s. Deepak Brothers, 1997 (1) APLJ 423 and an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1995 dated 28-11-1996.

( 4 ) SRI Vedula Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, contended that no authorization need be filed along with the complaint and it is purely a question of fact which is to be gone into by the trial Court and that during the course of trial if ultimately the trial court feels that an authorization is required, it is for that Court to record a finding to that effect and deal with the case in accordance with law but on that ground, the proceedings in CC No. 29 of 1999 cannot be quashed. In support of his arguments, sri Srinivas relid on two judgments of our high Court inl. Raja Krishna Reddy v. Satwik Drugs Limited and another, 1998 (4) ald 536, and an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal petition No. 4660 of 1999 dated 10-7-2000.

( 5 ) SECTION 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deals with offences by Companies and the Explanation to the said section is as follows:" (A) company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) director in relation to a firm means, a partner in the firm. "

( 6 ) IT is needless to say that a company is a juristic person, a legal entity. A company, though is a legal entity, does not have soul, mind, body and limbs to walk to court for preference of a complaint. The dictates of commonsense, practical wisdom, prudence and expedience impel the Courts in such a situation to allow a company to be represented by some person concerned with the affairs of the Company. Similarly, in case of a firm also, though strictly not a legal entity for all purposes, but a legal entity for the purpose of this Act, has to act through some human agency connected with the affairs of the firm. In the normal course, such legal entities managed by manager, partner, managing partner, director, managing director or principal officers like other executives in charge of affairs and administration. In my view, when the law expressly recognizes the right of such persons and executives to represent the interest of leg