The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility of the complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on the validity of the power of attorney and the authority of the complainant to represent the company.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.4030 of 1997 on the file of the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The complainant is the appellant herein. The complaint was preferred under Section 200 Cr.P.C for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

2. The facts in brief in the complaint is that A1 has given a cheque for Rs.18,01,063 dated 3. 1997 for the existing debt due to the complainant company which on representation to the bank was bounced on the ground that there was insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.

3. After recording the sworn statement, the complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and summons were issued to the accused. On receipt of the summons, the accused appeared before the Court and copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. And when the offence charged against the accused was explained to him and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

4. on the side of the complainant two witnesses were examined and Exs P1 to P11 were marked. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied their complicity with the crime. Neither the accused have examined any witness nor produced any document.

5.P.W.1 in his evidence would contend that he is an authorised agent of the plaintiffs company and Ex P1 is the power of attorney issued by the Company and that the second accused is the partner of the first accused Company and that the accused in connection with the purchase of Palmoil, owe Rs. 20,43,154 /-to the complainant. Ex P2 is the invoice for the supply of Palmoil to the accused and Ex P3 is the debit note prepared on the basis of Ex P2. Ex P4 is the statement of account to show the amount due from the accused to the complainant. On 3. 1997, the accused gave a cheque for Rs.18,01,063/- in partial discharge of the amount due to the complainant. When the said cheque was presented in the bank of India, Thousand Lights Branch on 4. 1997, the said cheque was bounced on 24. 1997 with an endorsement referred to "drawer". Ex P6 is the returned memo and Ex P7 is the debit advice. Ex. P8 is the notice sent to the accused . Ex P9 and Ex P10 are the acknowledgements dated 5. 1997. Hence the complaint.

6. P.W.2 is the Senior Manager of the Indian Bank Nepean Sea Road Branch, Mumbai. He would depose that the first accused Company is having a Current Account No.669. When Ex P5 cheque came to his Bank for collection on 14. 1979 which was returned with an endorsement as "referred to Drawer", since there was no sufficient funds available in the account of the drawer. EX P6 is the cheque retrned memo and the copy of the statement of account is Ex P11.

7. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, they denied their complicity with the crime. The learned trial Judge, after going through the evidence has come to a conclusion that the complaint was not preferred by the proper and authorised person of the complainant Company and the learned Judge has further held that the provisions contemplated under Sections 138 (a)(b)(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act have also not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt to warrant conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A reading of the Judgment of the trial Court will clearly go to show that at Page 4 , the learned trial judge has come to a definite conclusion that the provisions contemplated under Sections 138 (a)(b)(c) have been followed and prima facie , there is case made out by the complainant under the above provisions of law. But subsequently, at paragraph 5, the learned Judge has come to a conclusion that the complainant has not fully established the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt under Section 138 (a)(b)(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Judge has further observed at paragraph 5 of the Judgment that as per sec