ORDER P.D. Waingankar, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 03.01.2007 in Cri. A. No. 15040/2002 on the file of the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2002 in C.C. Nos. 22939/1996, 22940/1996 and 22941/1996 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioner-M/s. Savik Vijay Engineering Pvt. Ltd., purchased certain Cooling Systems from M/s. Vijay Hydraulics. The respondent-M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd., is the financier for the purchase of Cooling Systems. The purchases were made under Hire Purchase Agreement by the petitioners with the respondent. The amount financed by the respondent-M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd., was Rs. 10,00,000/-. 36 cheques were issued to the respondent by the petitioners towards the payment of 36 Equal Monthly Instalments in order to repay the loan. Out of 36 cheques, 33 cheques have been encashed. The last 3 cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured. The factum of dishonour of those cheques was informed to the petitioners by issuance of notice. Since petitioners failed to pay the amount shown under the last 3 cheques even after issuance of notice, three separate complaints came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Section 138 of N.I. Act. This case is arising out of one such complaint. The petitioners/accused appeared and having denied the charge, the respondent/complainant examined as many as 3 witnesses as P.W. 1 to PW3 and 25 documents came to be marked as Exs. P1 to P25. On behalf of the petitioners/accused, no evidence has been led either oral or documentary. When the matter was posted for arguments, the counsel for the petitioners has contended that the person who has filed the complaint is a Recovery Officer of the complainant's company, who is not properly authorized to file complaint and as such the complaint is not maintainable. The second contention was that Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused contained an arbitration clause, there was defect in the machinery supplied, the company which delivered the machinery committed breach of warranty of the terms of the contract, therefore, disputes that arose between the complainant and the accused ought to have been referred to arbitration, the prosecution of the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not maintainable. The other contention was that the cheque was issued towards security and when the cheque was dishonoured, no complaint can be filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act and that the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act cannot be invoked. 2. Upon hearing the arguments addressed by learned counsel for both the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and thereby convicted the petitioners/accused by order dated 11.04.2002 in C.C. Nos. 22939/1996, 22940/1996 and 22941/1996. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the petitioners/accused filed a Criminal Appeal No. 15040/2002 on the file of the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who in turn upon re-appreciation of the evidence dismissed the appeal while confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this Revision Petition is preferred by the revision petitioners/accused. 3. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties. Perused the records. 4. The only point that was canvassed seriously during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that the complaint presented by the Recovery Officer working for the complainant's company without any authorization is not maintainable and that the subsequent production of the authority will not cure the illegality which goes to the root of the matter and hence learned counsel sought to set aside the orders passed by both the Courts below and dismiss the complaint. In support of his argument the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2001 (6) Kar LJ 193 (Dr. Uma Gangadhar v. Classic Coffee and Spices Private Limited, Chickmagalur) and decision of me Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 182 (M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd., and another v. M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., and another). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand, would submit that the complainant is a juristic person incapable of making physical presence in the Court and therefore it is the right of complainant to choose its representative and hence there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and that the complaint filed by the Recovery Officer is maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 102 apart from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 426 (Indra Kumar Patodia and Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., and Ors.). 6. Upon hearing the submission made by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the point that arises for my determination is: "Whether the impugned order passed by both the Courts below calls for my interference?" 7. My finding is in the negative for the following reasons. 8. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is worthwhile to place on record the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by both the learned counsel. In 2001(6) Kar. LJ. 193, it has been held as under: "(A) NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, Sections 138 and 142-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 200 and 482-Dishonour of cheque-Complaint on behalf of the company regarding-Manager of company making complaint must be authorised-If complaint, as filed, was not maintainable as on date of its filing, for reason of manager filing it, not being authorized, complaint has to be dismissed and complaint so dismissed cannot be revived by subsequent authorization of Manager-What is invalid at inception cannot be validated by later ratification-Criminal proceedings initiated on such complaint invalid ab initio is liable to be quashed." In AIR 2002 Supreme Court 182 in head note (A) it is held as under: "(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Sections 142, 138-Cheque dishonour complaint-Can be made by payee or holder in due course of cheque-Complaint lodged in name and on behalf of appellant company who is payee of cheques-Is maintainable-Fact that complaint was lodged by Manager or Deputy General Manager who had not been authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file complaint on behalf of company-Cannot be a ground for quashing complaint, since defect is curable." In AIR 2013 Supreme Court 426, in head note B, it has been held as under; "(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 141,142-Complaint of dishonour of cheque-Need not necessarily be signed by complainant-Com-Criminal RC. (2 of 1974), Sections 2(d),200. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), Sections 3(56), 3(65). The complaint of dishonour of cheque need not necessarily be signed by complainant. (2 of 1974), Sections 2(d),200. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), Sections 3(56), 3(65). The complaint of dishonour of cheque need not necessarily be signed by complainant. The only requirement that S. 142 provides is that the complaint must necessary be in writing and the complaint can be presented by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. The definition of complaint as stated in Section 2(d) of Cr. R C. provides that the same needs to be in oral or in writing. The non obstante clause in Section 142(a) is restricted, to exclude two things only from the Code i.e., (a) exclusion of oral complaints and (b) exclusion of cognizance on complaint by anybody other than the payee or the holder in due course. None of the other provisions of the Criminal R C. are excluded by the said non obstante clause. The Magistrate is therefore required to follow the procedure under Section 200 of the Criminal R C. once he has taken the complaint of the payee/holder in due course and record statement of the complainant and such other witnesses as present at the said date. Here, the Code Specifically provides that the same is required to be signed by the complainant as well as the witnesses making the statement. Mere presentation of the complaint is only the first step and no action can be taken unless the process of verification is complete. The Magistrate thereafter has to consider the statement on oath, that is, the verification statement under Section 200 and the statement of any witness, and then decide whether there is sufficient ground to the accused for non-signing the complaint as the statement made on oath and signed by the complainant safeguards the interest of the accused." 9. From reading of the ratio laid down in the decision of this Court reported in 2001 (6) Kar LJ 193, it is seen that the complaint was filed by the Manager of the company for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the said case also similar contention was taken that the complaint is not maintainable and the High Court held that the complaint filed by the Manager of the Company without authorization is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed and the complaint so dismissed cannot be revived by subsequent authorisation of Manager. In the said case also similar contention was taken that the complaint is not maintainable and the High Court held that the complaint filed by the Manager of the Company without authorization is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed and the complaint so dismissed cannot be revived by subsequent authorisation of Manager. What is invalid at inception cannot be validated by later ratification. 10. The reading of the ratio laid down in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 132, indicates that the complaint can be made by payee or holder in due course of cheque. The complaint lodged in name and on behalf of the Appellant-Company, who is payee of the cheque is maintainable. Fact that the complaint was lodged by Manager or Deputy General Manager who had not been authorized by Board of Directors to file and sign the complaint on behalf of the company cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint, since defect is curable. 11. The ratio laid down in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 426, reveals that the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act need not necessarily be signed by complainant. The only requirement that Section 142 provides is that the complaint must necessarily be in writing and the complaint can be presented by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. Mere presentation of the complaint is only the first step and no action can be taken unless the process of verification is complete. The Magistrate thereafter has to consider the statement on oath, that is, the verification statement under Section 200 and then decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. In the case on hand, the complaint is signed and presented by one Anil Kumar, Recovery Officer of the Company. The complaint was presented by him before the Court on 27.10.1995. The sworn statement of Anil Kumar-the Recovery Officer came to be recorded on 20.08.1996 by the learned Magistrate. Both the complaint and sworn statement have been signed by Anil Kumar. After recording the statement and perusing the records, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to issue process against the accused and thereby the process came to be issued. It appears that by the time the case came up for evidence. Anil Kumar, who presented the complaint left the company and thereafter a power of attorney came to be executed as per Ex. It appears that by the time the case came up for evidence. Anil Kumar, who presented the complaint left the company and thereafter a power of attorney came to be executed as per Ex. P1 in favour of one Sripad Potdar, who prosecuted the case. So, one thing is clear that Anil Kumar who presented the complaint is not a stranger to the Company. He is an officer of the company specially meant to look after the recovery. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that the complaint presented by Manager of the Company is maintainable. If the complaint is presented by a stranger who is to no way concerned to the affairs of the company, then it can be said that the complaint initiated by him is not maintainable. Here, in this case, the complaint is initiated by one Anil Kumar- the Recovery Officer of the Company. The company has not taken any objections for presentation of the complaint by Anil Kumar. Subsequently, the Managing Director and Secretary of the Company namely Sri. Pankaj Desai and Sri. M.C. Jalan, have executed power of attorney as per Ex. P1 authorizing one Sripad Potdar, who prosecuted the complaint. So the ratio laid down in the decision of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 182 and AIR 2013 Supreme Court 425. There is no substance in the contention taken by the revision petitioners/accused that the complaint is not maintainable. No other points have been urged during the course of the arguments. Even otherwise, it is admitted that the cheque in question was issued by the accused along with 36 cheques for repayment of the loan obtained by them from the complainant. 33 cheques were encashed and the cheque in question and another two cheques were dishonoured. Since the accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after the receipt of the statutory notice, accused have committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 33 cheques were encashed and the cheque in question and another two cheques were dishonoured. Since the accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after the receipt of the statutory notice, accused have committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Both the Magistrate -and the Sessions Judge have appreciated the evidence placed on record in its proper perspective and came to the right conclusion that the accused committed an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the accused/revision petitioners. No good grounds have been made out to call for my interference in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Hence, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.