The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper authorization by the company empowering the Managing Director to file the complaint and conduct the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27. 12. 2003 passed by the Learned iii Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore in Criminal Appeal no. 42/2001, by which the conviction of the respondent in Judgment dated 27. 2. 2001 recorded by the Learned JMFC (IV Court) Mangalore in C. C. No. 215/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequent sentence have been set aside. The revision petitioner/complainant prays for resorting the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Judge.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is a company represented by its Managing Director. In the complaint filed on behalf of the said Company, it was alleged that one Vasanthkumar had borrowed a sum of Rs. 65,000/- from the revision petitioner and for repayment of the balance of the said amount with interest thereon he, (the respondent/accused), as co-obligant, had issued a cheque for rs. 65,200/ -. The said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The complainant/company claimed that despite service of notice of dishonour of cheque, the respondent having failed to pay the amount the latter had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 3 ) A contention was taken on behalf of the respondent accused in the Trial Court that though his signature was on the cheque, contents of the cheque had not been filled by him and that he had not stood surety for repayment of any loan taken by Vasanthkumar. On consideration of the evidence, the Learned Trial Judge held that issuance of cheque for repayment had been proved and that ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act having been disclosed, the accused/respondent was liable to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, he convicted the respondent and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was further directed that if the fine amount was realized, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation.

( 4 ) THAT judgment of conviction and sentence was challenged by the respondent in Criminal appeal No. 42/2001. In appeal, the accused sought for cross-examination of the complainant and also permission to adduce evidence. That prayer was allowed by the Learned Appellate judge. After cross-examining the complainant, the accused examined himself as D. W. 1. A vague contention was taken by the respondent before the Appellate Court that he had kept certain signed blank cheques in his office and that one of such cheques, might have been taker by Vasathkumar. In effect his contention was that the said Vasanthkumar has stolen the cheque and had given it to the complainant. It was also contended by him in his evidence before the appellate Court that when he asked Vasanthkumar about cheque leaves, the latter told that nothing would happen. Rejecting his contention, the Learned Sessions Judge, held that the cheque had been issued for discharge of the loan.

( 5 ) THERE was another contention taken by the respondent. It was that there was no proper authorization by the company empowering the Managing Director to file the complaint and to conduct the case. That contention was upheld by the Learned Sessions Judge relying on the observation of this High Court in Dr. Uma Gangadhar vs Classic Coffee and Spices Pvt. Ltd. Chickmagalur (2001 (6) Karnataka Law Journal 193) to the effect that in order to launch prosecution or any legal proceedings on behalf of the company, it is just and necessary that there should be a valid sanction and authorisation by the company and merely by designation of a Manager, it would be impermissible in law to lauch the prosecution without a specific authorisation.

( 6 ) IN the result, holding that there was no proper au