JUDGMENT : U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Agni, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mrs. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant, who is the complainant, has challenged the judgment and order dated 30/03/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji (J.M.F.C., for short) in Criminal Case No. OA 314/2008/C. 3. The complainant had filed the said case against the respondent no. 1 (accused) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N. I. Act, for short) alleging that the accused, in discharge of his liability to the complainant, with respect to the loan account C.C-55 had issued a cheque bearing No. 412779 dated 25/02/2008 for Rs. 2,47,283.34 drawn on Centurian Bank, Shantadurga Niwas, M. G. Road, Panaji, Goa. The complainant further alleged that the said cheque when presented for clearing to the concerned department of Bicholim Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Patto Plaza Branch, Panaji, Goa, was returned unpaid with remarks "insufficient funds" with memo dated 26/02/2008 of the Centurian Bank, Panaji, Goa. A legal notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused as required under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The accused did not claim the said notice and it was returned back with remark "unclaimed, returned to the sender". Since the accused failed and neglected to make the payment of the cheque amount, the complaint was filed. 4. The complainant examined Mrs. Sunita Milind Bhobe, the Manager of the complainant at the relevant time of deposition, as PW1. The statement of the accused under Section313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused did not examine any witness. 5. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned J.M.F.C. held that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of legal liability and that the legal notice issued by the complainant to the accused was received by him. It was held that all the ingredients of Section 138 of N. I. Act were established. However, still the complaint was dismissed holding that PW1 had no authority to depose. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, present appeal has been filed. 6. Mr. It was held that all the ingredients of Section 138 of N. I. Act were established. However, still the complaint was dismissed holding that PW1 had no authority to depose. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, present appeal has been filed. 6. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that along with affidavit-in-evidence of PW1, the resolution authorising PW1 to depose in the matter was duly annexed and that a statement to that effect was made in the said affidavit. He further submitted that only because the said resolution was not exhibited in evidence, the learned J.M.F.C dismissed the complaint. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of "Central Bank of India Vs. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Company and others", [AIR 1997 Bombay 225] and submitted that no power of attorney or authorisation is required for a person to depose in the case. He, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is erroneous and ought to be set aside. He urged that the accused be held guilty and convicted and be heard on the point of sentence and appropriate sentence be awarded. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the judgment in the case of "Central Bank of India" (supra), was in a civil suit and is not applicable to the present case. He contended that the complainant had to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and since the alleged resolution was not produced during oral evidence by the witness and not exhibited, the resolution which was merely annexed to the affidavit-in-evidence could not have been considered. He further submitted that besides the point of power of attorney, there is another crucial point to be considered by this Court. He pointed out that the statement of account of the complainant reveals that on 26/02/2008, the liability was Rs. 2,46,283.34, whereas the cheque was for an amount of Rs. 2,47,283.34 and it was also presented on 26/02/2008. He submitted that since the cheque amount was more than the legally enforceable debt or liability, Section 138 of the N. I. Act was not applicable. He, therefore, urged that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 8. 2,47,283.34 and it was also presented on 26/02/2008. He submitted that since the cheque amount was more than the legally enforceable debt or liability, Section 138 of the N. I. Act was not applicable. He, therefore, urged that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 8. I have gone through the material on record and I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties as also the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the complainant. 9. A perusal of the affidavit-in-evidence of PW1 reveals that she had specifically stated in paragraph 2 thereof that she was duly authorised to depose in the matter and that she was producing along with the affidavit a certified copy of the resolution. Even in the cross-examination, she had specifically stated that she had produced the resolution giving her powers to depose in the matter. It is further seen that annexed to the affidavit-in-evidence of PW1, there is extract of resolution passed in the Board of Directors' meeting held on 31/08/2010 whereunder PW1 has been authorised to sign and present the pleadings and affidavits and also to depose and give evidence in all criminal cases as well as civil suits, etc. First of all, therefore, it is wrong to say that no authority was produced by PW1 for deposing in the matter. 10. Be that as it may, in the case of "Central Bank of India" (supra), this Court has held that anybody can come and give evidence in the Court, provided that he is acquainted with the facts of that case and no power of attorney or authorisation is necessary for any witness to give evidence in the Court. In the present matter, the complaint was under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The entire case depended on documentary evidence as well as the records of the complainant-Bank. A perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals that she deposed on the basis of records of the Bank. The ratio held in the case supra should apply to Civil cases as well as to the Criminal Cases. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason also, it cannot be said that the testimony of PW1 cannot be considered. 11. A perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals that she deposed on the basis of records of the Bank. The ratio held in the case supra should apply to Civil cases as well as to the Criminal Cases. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason also, it cannot be said that the testimony of PW1 cannot be considered. 11. Insofar as the question of cheque amount being less than the actual legally enforceable debt or liability as on 26/02/2008, is concerned, it is seen that such a point was never raised before the learned J.M.F.C.. There is no finding of the learned J.M.F.C. on this point. A perusal of the statement of account, produced by the complainant on record, as Exhibit PW1/27 reveals that there are three entries on 26/02/2008 out of which two are credit entries and one is debit entry and according to Mr. Ramani, a question would arise whether the credit entry of Rs. 1,000/- was made prior to the presentation of the cheque or after the cheque was presented and this point would require evidence of the parties. Though Mr. Agni, learned Counsel for the accused does not agree with the above submission and alleges that said entry dated 26/02/2008 is clear and it shows the amount due as Rs. 2,46,283.34, nothing more is required, however, I am of the view that the said question regarding the amount that was due as on the date and the time of presentation of the cheque is relevant and the same cannot be ascertained merely from the said statement of account or from the arguments advanced across the bar. The said point would require adequate evidence in this regard and, therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the case to the learned J.M.F.C. by setting aside the judgment of acquittal and asking the learned J.M.F.C. to decide the matter afresh by taking further evidence, if any. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in the following terms: (a) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. (b) Criminal Case No. OA 314/2008/C is restored to the file of the learned J.M.F.C., 'C' Court, Panaji, Goa. (c) Learned J.M.F.C. shall permit the parties to adduce further evidence as observed above and also shall exhibit the resolution annexed to the affidavit-in-evidence and shall decide all the points afresh. (b) Criminal Case No. OA 314/2008/C is restored to the file of the learned J.M.F.C., 'C' Court, Panaji, Goa. (c) Learned J.M.F.C. shall permit the parties to adduce further evidence as observed above and also shall exhibit the resolution annexed to the affidavit-in-evidence and shall decide all the points afresh. (d) All the contentions of both the parties are left open. (e) Parties to appear before the J.M.F.C. on 15/12/2014 at 10.00 a.m. (f) Bail bonds already executed by the accused and his surety to continue till the disposal of the case.