JUDGMENT S. K. Tiwari, J.: This petition is directed against the order dated 20th June, 1996 passed in Case No. C/2045 of 91 by the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. 2. The present petitioner filed a petition of complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of M/s. Greaves Cotton & Company Limited, Calcutta, against the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner is an employee of the said company and filed the petition of complaint on the strength of the authority given to him by the Deputy General Manager of the Company. The Opposite party raised an objection in the Court below that the complaint presented was not duly authorised by the Board of Directors. Hence, the cognizance taken of the offence was bad in law. 3. The learned Magistrate has upheld the contention relying on several authorities of this Court, the apex Court and other High Courts. 4. The Negotiable Instruments Act provides that if a cheque has bounced, the petition of complaint can be filed not only by the drawee but also by a holder in due course. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Madan Dey reported in AIR 1991 Cr.LJ 347, while dealing with the complaint filed on behalf of the Union of India, observed thus: "A complaint has to be filed by an officer of the Union of India as representing Union of India, as Union of India has to exercise its power and authority through the officers competent to act on behalf of Union of India. The ends of justice should not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere technicalities even when the case is proved to the hilt and the accused is found otherwise guilty. The fact that the complaint was not filed by a person duly authorised cannot in our view render the proceedings incompetent or invalid. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak reported in 1984 Cr.LJ 647: AIR 1984 SC 718 . 5. The fact that the complaint was not filed by a person duly authorised cannot in our view render the proceedings incompetent or invalid. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak reported in 1984 Cr.LJ 647: AIR 1984 SC 718 . 5. In the light of the aforesaid observations, if the learned Magistrate was of the view that the complaint was not presented by a proper person, he ought to have directed the complainant either to produce the resolution of the Board of Directors or should have directed a duly authorised person to come and sign the petition of complaint in the Court. It was certainly a technical matter which cannot throw out the litigant from the Court. 6. This revisional petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, is directed to assign the case to some other learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal in accordance with law. The interim orders are vacated. Revisional application allowed.