ORDER : The petitioner is the sole accused alleged for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act in C.C No. 189/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Cass Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank limited. The dishonoured cheque involved in this case is for Rs.1,19,200/-. It is stated in the impugned Annexure -A complaint that a liability arose out of a loan transaction of Rs.2,00,000/-, that was availed by the petitioner, who is a member of the complainant Service Co-operative Bank. 2. The impugned Annexure-A complaint was filed through the Chief Accountant-in charge of the post of Secretary of the complainant Bank and the complainant has been described in Annexure-A complaint as follows: “The Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Represented by its Chief Accountant-in-charge of Secretary, Smt. A. Ambika.” 3. According to the petitioner, it is not asserted anywhere in the complaint that the Secretary is the person duly authorised in terms of the provisions contained in the bye-laws of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, who can sue for and on behalf of the complainant Co-operative Society. Further that, there is no assertion in the complaint that as per the registered bye-laws of the Co-operative Society, the Society can sue and be sued through the Secretary and that the authorised official has direct knowledge about the transaction, etc. The petitioner contended that therefore the complaint is not maintainable and to fortify that aspect, the petitioner had filed Annexure-B Crl.M.P No. 1682/2017, in C.C No. 189/2014, praying that the complaint may be dismissed, as it is not maintainable. The trial court after hearing both sides passed the impugned Annexure-C order dated 17.10.2017 and held that it has been stated by the complainant in the objections filed by that party to the aforesaid application, that as per the registered byelaws of the complainant Co-operative Society, the Secretary of the said Co-operative Society is the person, who can represent the complainant Co-operative Society in all legal proceedings and that there is no need for any Power of Attorney or authorisation. The trial court has accepted the above said contention of Co-operative Society and held that the petitioner's contention that there should necessarily be averments about the direct knowledge of the official concerned regarding the transactions in question, is applicable only in a case when the complaint is instituted by a Power of Attorney holder and that in the instant case as per the provisions contained in the Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and registered bye-laws issued thereunder, the aforesaid official is authorised as per the registered bye-laws to represent the Society in all legal proceedings and that the complaint is maintainable. That in such a case, there is no necessity for any assertion that such authorized official has direct knowledge about the transactions etc. It is this order in Annexure-C, that is under challenge in this petition. 4. Heard Sri. Mathew Scaria, the learned counsel for the petitioner (accused), Sri D Sajeev, the learned counsel for R1 (complainant) and Sri Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Public Prosecutor for R2-State. 5. True, that the Apex Court has held in the decisions as in A.C Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (11) SCC 790 : 2013 (4) KLT 21 (SC) etc. that, where the complaint is filed by the Power of Attorney, then there should be an explicit assertion in the complaint as to the direct knowledge of Power of Attorney holder about the transaction in question. However, Section 9 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows: “9.Co-operative Societies to be bodies corporate- The registration of a society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, having perpetual succession and a common seal and with power to hold property, enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes for which it was constituted” Section 7 deals with the provisions of the registration of Cooperative Societies. Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, framed under the enabling provisions of the above said Act, provides that bye-laws of the Society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The complainant would state that as per the registered bye-laws of the complainant Cooperative Society, the Society can sue and be sued through its Secretary, etc. The complainant would state that as per the registered bye-laws of the complainant Cooperative Society, the Society can sue and be sued through its Secretary, etc. Therefore, the Act and the Rules clearly envisage that the registered bye-laws should provide provisions as to who is the Officer, who can sue or be sued in the name of the Co-operative Society concerned. 6. Sri Mathew Scaria, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the complaint in question has not been instituted by the Power of Attorney. But that the complaint should necessarily be accompanied by authenticated copy of the registered bye-laws of the Co-operative Society to clearly show as to who is the authorised official as per the bye-laws of the Co-operative Society who can institute or defend legal proceedings and that these aspects should also be asserted in the compliant as well as in the affidavit filed at the Section 200 CrPC preliminary enquiry stage and in the absence of such factual aspects and materials borne out from the complaint and the affidavit, it will be not proper and right for the Magistrate to take cognizance in such a case. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Om Shakthi SC/ST and Minority Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. M. Venkatesh, 2008 KHC 5500 : CrLJ 998. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision read as follows: “9. The learned counsel for the appellant complainant relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 (A.R Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another) and contended that criminal law can be set into motion by any one. He also relied upon the judgment reported in 19921 CrLJ 347 in the case of Union of India v. Madan Day and another, and contended that in general, a complaint for an offence can be filed by any person except in cases of offences mentioned in S.195 to 197 of the Cr.P.C. In other words, any one can set the law in motion and no specific authorisation is necessary to file the complaint for offences punishable under S.5, 5A and 7A of the Preventiuon of Corruption Act and S.4 and 85, 5 and 135 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. In view of S.142 of the N.I Act, I hold that the said two decisions are not applicable to the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant complainant cannot contend that even a complaint under S.200 Cr.P.C for offences punishable under S.138 of the N.I Act can be presented by any one and the law can be set into motion, it is to be noted that S.142 of the NI Act is quite clear and reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C 1973, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under S.138 of the NI Act, accepting upon a complaint in written made by the payee or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque” The reading of the said provision negates the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant complainant also contended that the society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the President being an authorised officer of the Co-operative Society, can present a complaint on behalf of the society. Since the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, clearly indicate that the president can exercise powers on behalf of the society. The complaint is not accompanied with the bye law of the society to establish the said fact. In the instant case, as the complaint is one presented for the offence punishable under the N.I. Act, it should be supported by an authorisation or Power of Attorney as held by this Court in the case of Director Maruti Feeds and Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Basanna Pattekar, represented in ILR 2007 Kar 3155 : 2007 (6) AIR Kar R 251, wherein it is held: “When a complainant deposing on behalf of the company - non production of resolution - authorising the Director of the Company to establish that the Director has been authorised to depose for and on behalf of the company is fatal to the complaint and the complaint cannot be entertained int eh absence of authorisation or a power of attorney.” 10. In the instant case, the complainant is a Cooperative Society. The president has examined himself as PW1. Besides the same, the legal notice has been issued for an on behalf of the Society by its Secretary. The prayer in the complaint is for payment of the amount covered under cheque with cost and interest. In the instant case, the complainant is a Cooperative Society. The president has examined himself as PW1. Besides the same, the legal notice has been issued for an on behalf of the Society by its Secretary. The prayer in the complaint is for payment of the amount covered under cheque with cost and interest. All these clearly indicate that the complaint is not maintainable in law and the trial court was justified in rejecting the complaint for the reason as stated above. In addition to the reasons assigned by the trial court in acquitting the accused and for the reasons stated above, I hold that the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of the allegation made against him and hence the following order: The appeal preferred by the complainant appellant is hereby dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the trial court dated 06.04.2005 in C.C No. 36103/02 is upheld.” 7. Reading of the said judgment discloses that the said contention considered by the Karnataka High Court was not at the pre-trial stage in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. But it was in a Criminal Revision Petition, after the judgments of the trial court and appellate court. Further reading of the said judgment also discloses that the complaint in that case was preferred through the incumbent who was the President of the Co-operative Society concerned and not by the Secretary or the authorised Chief Executive Officer of the Co-operative Society etc. It is also relevant to note that 3 Judge bench decisions of the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanian SethuRaman v. State of Maharashtra & another reported in (2004)13 SCC 324 has conclusively held that the court trying the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act does not have the power to discharge the accused and that once plea of accused is recorded under Section 252, the procedure contemplated in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C is to be followed and the trial has to be taken to its logical conclusion and that the only remedy of such an aggrieved accused is to prefer an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C etc. Therefore, even if there was merit in the contentions of the petitioner, the trial court could not have lawfully dismissed the complaint as not maintainable in the instant case, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid 3 judge bench decisions. True, that this Court could examine the tenability of such a plea in an application like the instant one filed under section 482 of Cr.PC. But it has to be borne in mind that the complaint in question has not been instituted by a Power of Attorney. Therefore, the trial court is fully right in holding that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions as in A.C Narayanan's case (supra), is not applicable in the facts of the case. Ordinarily, it will be more helpful for the trial court, if the complainant Co-operative Society makes available their authenticated copy of the registered byelaws, as to who is the Officer who can represent the said Society in all legal proceedings, so that the Magistrate can easily verify that the person through whom the complaint is presented as in the instant case is in fact the Officer who is authorised to represent the Co-operative Society in all legal proceedings, in terms of the provisions contained in registered bye-laws of the Society. Merely because, the complainant Co-operative Society does not make any such materials, will not necessarily lead to the situation that the complaint should be thrown out as being not maintainable due to that technical defect alone. If the Magistrate is convinced that some more materials are required to verify that aspect, then the Magistrate could insist for any such additional material at the time of conducting Sec.200 Cr.P.C preliminary inquiry or Section 202 inquiry. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the vast majority of Co-operative Societies functioning within the State of Kerala in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Chief Executive Official of the Co-operative Society would ordinarily be the Secretary of the said Co-operative Society. In very few Apex Societies, the designation of the Chief Executive Officer would be the Managing Director etc. In very few Apex Societies, the designation of the Chief Executive Officer would be the Managing Director etc. So, where the complaint is presented through the incumbent, who is holding the post of Secretary or who is in-charge of the post of Secretary of the Co-operative Society and the Magistrate feels that the interest of justice demands taking cognizance etc, then such a decision of the Magistrate to take cognizance in such a complaint cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the complaint or the affidavit filed under Section 200 Cr.PC enquiry is bereft of any materials like the authenticated copy of the registered bye-laws of the Cooperative Society. It is the case of the complainant that at the relevant time, the incumbent in the post of Chief Accountant was officiating as the Secretary of the Co-operative Society, at the time of institution of the complaint. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Magistrate in dismissing Annexure-B application through impugned Annexure-C order cannot be said to be vitiated by any grave illegality or impropriety. At the same time, there is another crucial aspect of the matter. If the accused seriously objects to the standing of the officials, who is representing the Society in respect of the above filed complaint, then certainly the complainant Cooperative Society is obliged to let in evidence like production of authenticated copy of the registered bye-laws of the Co-operative Society to show as to, who is the official, who is authorised as per the registered bye-laws to represent the Society in such legal proceedings. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to now interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate in the impugned Annexure-C order. However it is made clear that in case the accused is still persisting with his objection, then the complainant is obliged at the appropriate stage, to produce necessary materials like the authenticated copy of the registered bye-laws of the Co-operative Society to show as to who is the official, who has been empowered by the registered bye-laws to represent the Co-operative Society in legal proceedings. Granting, such leave to the petitioner to raise such objections at the appropriate stage, the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Case will stand dismissed.