A complaint under S.138 of the N.I. Act must be filed by an individual who is explicitly authorized to do so per the society's bye-laws.

1. The petitioner is the sole accused alleged for offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I Act in C.C No. 189/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Thiruvananthapuram, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent Thiruvananthapuram Service Co - operative Bank limited. The dishonoured cheque involved in this case is for Rs.1,19,200/-. It is stated in the impugned Annexure - Acomplaint that a liability arose out of a loan transaction of Rs.2,00,000/-, that was availed by the petitioner, who is a member of the complainant Service Co - operative Bank.

2. The impugned Annexure - A complaint was filed through the Chief Accountant - in charge of the post of Secretary of the complainant Bank and the complainant has been described in Annexure - A complaint as follows:

"The Thiruvananthapuram Service Co - operative Bank Ltd. Represented by its Chief Accountant - in - charge of Secretary, Smt. A. Ambika."

3. According to the petitioner, it is not asserted anywhere in the complaint that the Secretary is the person duly authorised in terms of the provisions contained in the bye - laws of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, who can sue for and on behalf of the complainant Co - operative Society. Further that, there is no assertion in the complaint that as per the registered bye - laws of the Co - operative Society, the Society can sue and be sued through the Secretary and that the authorised official has direct knowledge about the transaction, etc. The petitioner contended that therefore the complaint is not maintainable and to fortify that aspect, the petitioner had filed Annexure - B Crl.M.P No. 1682/2017, in C.C No. 189/2014, praying that the complaint may be dismissed, as it is not maintainable. The Trial Court after hearing both sides passed the impugned Annexure - C order dated 17/10/2017 and held that it has been stated by the complainant in the objections filed by that party to the aforesaid application, that as per the registered bye - laws of the complainant Co - operative Society, the Secretary of the said Co - operative Society is the person, who can represent the complainant Co - operative Society in all legal proceedings and that there is no need for any Power of Attorney or authorisation. The Trial Court has accepted the above said contention of Co - operative Society and held that the petitioner's contention that there should necessarily be averments about the direct knowledge of the official concerned regarding the transactions in question, is applicable only in a case when the complaint is instituted by a Power of Attorney holder and that in the instant case as per the provisions contained in the Co - operative Societies Act, Rules and registered bye - laws issued thereunder, the aforesaid official is authorised as per the registered bye - laws to represent the Society in all legal proceedings and that the complaint is maintainable. That in such a case, there is no necessity for any assertion that such authorised official has direct knowledge about the transactions etc. It is this order in Annexure - C, that is under challenge in this petition.

4. Heard Sri. Mathew Scaria, the learned counsel for the petitioner (accused), Sri. D. Sajeev, the learned counsel for R1 (complainant) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Public Prosecutor for R2 - State.

5. True, that the Apex Court has held in the decisions as in A. C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (3) KHC 885 : 2014 (11) SCC 790 : 2013 (4) KLT 21 : 2013 (2) KLD 539 : 2013 (4) KLJ 279 : AIR 2014 SC 630 : 2014 CriLJ 576 etc. that, where the complaint is filed by the Power of Attorney, then there should be an explicit assertion in the complaint as to the direct knowledge of Power of Attorney holder about the transact