JUDGMENT:- The applicant-orig, complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., I Court, Nashik in SCC No.5339 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.2orig, accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.J. Act. 2. The case of the complainant - EPC Industries Ltd. is that the accused had placed an order for supply of Drip and Sprinkler irrigation system with them and the complainant supplied the said material. In respect of the said liability cheque was issued. As the cheque was not honoured complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-Orig, complainant. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 4. The complaint is filed• by EPC Industries Ltd. Initially the complaint was filed by Mr. Kedar Phadke, who was the Company Secretary of the complainant. However, thereafter evidence on affidavit was given by Mr. Navghare, the new Company Secretary of the complainant. PW -1 Navghare has not filed any document or any article of association or memorandum of company to show that he had legal right or an authority to conduct the present case on behalf of the company, considering Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act when an in corporal person is represented by corporal person, definitely corporal person must be authorized by in corporal person to represent it in the Court. In absence of such authorization from complainant Company, complaint filed by the natural person will be lacking in respect to the authorization from the complainant Company and in such a case complaint is not maintainable. In the present case, neither the first Company Secretary Mr. Kedar Phadke has filed any authorization on record nor PW-l Navghare has filed any authorization of the complainant Company authorizing him to conduct the matter. Looking to all these facts, the learned Magistrate observed that due to lack of authorization, the complaint is lacking and hence it is not maintainable. On these grounds the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent accused. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, i am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. On these grounds the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent accused. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, i am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. Appeal dismissed.