A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be filed by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. A manager of a company is not a payee or a holder in due course of a cheque and therefore cannot file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without proper authorization.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the complainant by name M/s. Satish and company being aggrieved by the judgment and order dt: 31-12-1994 passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C. C. No. 229 of 1993. By the impugned order, the Court below acquitted the accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act ). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the entire approach of the Court below is totally erroneous and on the basis of the material recorded an offence is constituted under Sec. 138 of the Act and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence they are charged with. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary for me to notice the facts of the case.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the complainant that A-1 is the firm and A-2 to A-4 are its partners. The accused were purchasing goods from the complainant on credit basis and A-1 was accordingly issuing the cheques for the goods purchased. In relation to such a transaction, the accused issued cheque dated 9-6-1993 for an amount of Rs. 81,450/- drawn on State Bank of India, Begum Bazar Branch, marked in the case as Ex. P. 2. The accused also issued two other cheques dated 11-6-1993 for an amount of Rs. 82,700/- marked as Ex. P. 3 and the third cheque dated 10-6-1993 for an amount of Rs. 82,200/- marked as Ex. P. 4. The latter two cheques were drawn on A. P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, begum Bazar. The complainant accordingly presented the cheques to the Banks but the Banks returned Ex. P. 2 on 11-6-1993 vide bank Memo Ex. P. 5, and Ex. P. 3 was returned on 14-6-1993 under bank endorsement Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 4 cheque was also returned on the same day i. e. on 14-6-1993 vide bank endorsement ex. P. 7. All these cheques were returned by the Banks on the ground of insufficient funds and effect not cleared . Thereafter, the complainant issued a notice dated 18-3-1993 vide Ex. P. 8 and the same was received in time by the accused and accordingly the accused also gave reply to the said notice vide ex. P. 9 dated 3-7-1993. Since the accused did not pay the amount within fifteen days as per Section 138 of the Act, the complainant filed a complaint on 20-7-1993. On the same day, after examing the complaint, the Court has taken the cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial of the case. On behalf of the Company, its manager by name Naresh Kumar has been examined as P. W. 1. On the appreciation of the entire material the Court below has acquitted the respondents, for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is in these circumstances, the complainant has come up to this Court by way of this appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the entire approach of the Court below is in error. He elaborated his argument contending that the court below was wrong in holding that the complainant was incompetent to lodge the complaint. He submitted that the complainant is M/s. Satish and company and the complaint was filed through its Manager Sri Naresh Kumar. It is stated in the cause title of the complaint that it was filed by M/s. Satish and company by its Manager. Therefore, the Court below is not right in holding that such a complaint was not made by a competent person. At any rate, he submitted that Ex. P. 1 though filed after one year authorising the Manager to initiate proceedings either civil or criminal, it cannot be said that the Manager was not competent to file the present complaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the alleged authorisation Ex. P. 1 was not filed along with the complaint but it was filed after one year of the filing of the complaint and as such the fact remains that as on the date of filing of the complaint, no such auth