JUDGMENT The original-complainant by this application seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. Advocate Shri Sengaonkar for the applicant made submission that accused no.2 was the authorised signatory for accused no.1 and in that capacity he has issued cheque. So judgment of acquittal suffers from infirmities, hence it is a fit case to grant leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. 2. As per complainants own case the complainant had transaction with accused no.1 a proprietary firm. Accused no.2 has no concern with that business. Advocate Shri Sengaonkar made submission that sole proprietor is dead. It is not his contention that the property of respondent no.1 is inherited by accused no.2. Admittedly cheque was not issued by accused no.1, so transaction against accused no.1 was not tenable. The cheque was alleged to have been issued by accused no.2 in his capacity as authorised signatory. It is not the contention that accused no.2 stood as guarantor for accused no.1 and in that capacity issued cheque. No record is produced at the trial to show that accused no.2 was dealing the business for and on behalf of accused no.1 and he is authorised to issue such a cheque. When admittedly accused no.2 had no transaction with the complainant nor his status is alleged to be a guarantor for accused no.1, the prosecution as against accused no.2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not at all maintainable. Considering these facts, the learned trial Court acquitted accused no.2. This cannot be said to be illegal or perverse order. No arguable point arises in the matter. 3. Leave to appeal against acquittal is refused. Application dismissed. Application dismissed.