Point in Issue :
Whether in absence of any person examined as authorised on behalf of company complaint is maintainable.

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ahmedabad Rural, in Criminal Case No. 6804 of 2006. The said case was registered against the Respondent No. 2 – original accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. The brief facts leading to the case of the appellant are that the appellant filed a private complaint being Criminal Case No. 6804 of 2006 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural, on 8.8.2006 for return of four cheques valued at Rs. 3,60,000/- against the original accused – Respondent No. 2. The learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process on 15.8.2006 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter the trial proceeded.

3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused person was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against him in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

4. Thereafter, charge at Exhibit-11 came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, by his judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 6804 of 2006, acquitted the accused person as stated above.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Hon’ble Court.

9. Heard Mr. Vishal Dave, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned Advocate for appellant, Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 – State.

10. The judgment and order of acquittal is challenged on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal and while arguing the present case, Mr. Vishal, learned Advocate for appellant contended that learned trial Judge have committed grave error of law. It is also contended that the learned Judge has not considered oral evidence of complainant Piyush H. Shah. He has read examination-in-chief of one director of Company, Ex.53 and contended that evidence is not considered by learned Judge. He also contended that power regarding lodging of complaint is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the learned Judge has not considered the evidence produced before him in proper manner and has wrongly acquitted the Respondent No. 2 – accused. He has further contended that looking to the facts of the case as well as evidence produced on record, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is illegal, unjust and improper and is required to be quashed and set aside and Respondent No. 2 – accused be convicted.

11. Heard Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP for the respondent – State. Mr.Jani vehemently argued that from the contents of examination-in-chief Ex.53 reveals that witness is not called by the prosecution for the cross-examination and he was dropped. He contended that the complainant Piyush H. Shah, who is examined by the prosecution on behalf of the Company has not produced any letter of authorit