JUDGMENT : RATNAKER BHENGRA, J. I.A. No. 6827 of 2013 Having heard counsels on the point of limitation and being satisfied, the delay of 13 days in filing this Cr.M.P. is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 6827 of 2013 stands allowed. Cr. M.P. No. 2534 of 2013 1. In the instant application, the petitioner prayed for grant of leave to file Acquittal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.6.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, West Singhbum has been pleased to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.4.2013 passed by the learned trial court in C/1 Case No.-61 of 2009 and acquitted the Opposite Party No.-2 from the charges u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The case of the complainant or petitioner herein, in brief, is that the complainant company is engaged in the business of money lending, leasing and financing vehicles etc. under loan/hire purchase agreement and its branch offices are located all over the country. During business, the accused or opposite party herein approached the complainant company with a request to approve financial help for purchase of a vehicle on finance under the basis of finance and loan agreement. Upon negotiation, the complainant company sanctioned loan to the accused after entering into agreement no. 444359. Thereafter, the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 086489 for Rs. 1,76,150/- dated 18.6.2009 drawn on Canara Bank, Chakradharpur Branch in the name of the complainant company in discharge of his debt and existing liability towards the complainant. But, when the complainant deposited the cheque with its banker Punjab National Bank, Chaibasa Branch for collection, the same was returned unpaid on 27.6.2009 by the banker of the accused due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused to make payment of the dishonoured cheque, but it was refused by him. Thereafter, the complaint case was filed before the court of CJM, Chaibasa, bearing No. 61/09. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the court of the learned Trial Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. Accused person appeared. Thereafter, substance of accusation was explained to the accused u/s 138 of the N.I.Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the court of the learned Trial Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. Accused person appeared. Thereafter, substance of accusation was explained to the accused u/s 138 of the N.I.Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The complainant has examined only one witness namely, Arup Srivastav, who is Legal Manager of the complainant company. Apart from the oral evidence, complainant has filed and proved as Ext.-1 Cheque No. 086489 dated 18.6.2009, Ext.-2 Bank Return Memo, Ext.-3 Legal Notice and Ext.-4 receipt of registered notice. 4. The defence has not adduced any evidence, nor exhibited any documents. 5. On the basis of evidence, the learned trial court convicted the accused or opposite party herein for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and also to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,86,150/- to the complainant. Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2013 was filed before the Sessions Judge by the accused or opposite party herein. The appellate court acquitted the accused or opposite party herein by its judgment dated 15.6.2013. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of appellate court, petitioner has filed this case before this Court. ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company herein has substantially reiterated his argument that was made in the learned court below. He first and foremost pointed out the facts of the case and then highlighted that the accused or opposite party no.2 herein had issued a cheque of Rs. 01,76,150/- bearing Cheque No. 086489 in the name of the company on 18.06.2009 which was identified by CW-1 Arup Srivastava on behalf of the company. This cheque was drawn on Canara Bank and had the signature of the opposite party-the accused Laxman Prasad and it was marked as Ext.1. Counsel for the company then submitted that the cheque was presented by the company at P.N.B. Chaibasa Branch but due to insufficiency of fund the cheque was returned unpaid. Counsel further submitted that there was deliberate action on the part of the accused to issue a cheque with the said amount knowing very well that he would not be paying it in the future and for that he should be held fully accountable. 7. Counsel further submitted that there was deliberate action on the part of the accused to issue a cheque with the said amount knowing very well that he would not be paying it in the future and for that he should be held fully accountable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner company then submitted that the demand notice was issued and sent by the company through registered post after the cheque had bounced on 25.7.2009. CW-1 had identified the legal notice which was prepared and sent by the company which was marked as Ext.3. Legal notice was sent through registered A/D and the receipt had been identified which bore the number 3365 dated 25.7.2009 and this was marked as Ext.4. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that all the ingredients of section 138 of the NI Act are satisfied to recognize the offence that was crafted by the accused. He had submitted that the cheque was presented in the bank within a period of six months from the period it was drawn. When the cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficiency of fund then a notice was given regarding such non-payment within 30 days of information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. After receipt of the said notice the drawer of the cheque of the concerned amount of money did not make the required payment to the holder of the cheque within fifteen days. Thereafter the company was compelled to file the case under N.I. Act since all the ingredients of the relevant sections are attracted and the accused is fully guilty and should be held accountable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that all the persons appointed or authorized to initiate and conduct the case against the accused in the courts were employees of the petitioner company at the relevant time right from the inception of the case when it was first filed by Brajesh Kumar Singh the then Branch Manager at the Chaibasa Branch. After the resignation of Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh Mr. Binay Kumar was duly authorized to conduct the case. After the resignation of Binay Kumar Mr. Prashant Kumar, the then Asstt. Manager, Legal was then authorized and issued power of attorney to conduct the case. After the resignation of Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh Mr. Binay Kumar was duly authorized to conduct the case. After the resignation of Binay Kumar Mr. Prashant Kumar, the then Asstt. Manager, Legal was then authorized and issued power of attorney to conduct the case. However, on the transfer of Prashant Kumar, such transfer merely being an incidence of service or employment, then the complainant company, the petitioner herein had authorized Arup Srivastava, the then Legal Manager to conduct the case on behalf of the company, and the same was allowed by the learned trial court below without any objection. Therefore, the complainant company had authorized and given valid power to conduct the case on its behalf against the accused person and therefore there is no fault or error also in the authorization. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company to buttress his case had also cited the following judgments:- (i) Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Another, reported in (2012) ACD 1495 (ii) Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC (Cri.) 184, (iii) Sampeely Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited reported in (2017) 1 SCC (Cri) 149 (iv) Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dolly George reported in (2002) 9 SCC 455. (v) Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2018 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY OR STATE: 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the case of the petitioner company is not at all maintainable as per the law because first and foremost there was no proper person to represent the company and even the person who had lastly represented the company i.e. Sri Arup Srivastava was not properly authorized. Counsel says that there was a series of persons who have conducted the case right from Brajesh Kumar Singh who was the first Branch Manager conducting the case, subsequently the responsibility was passed on to one Binay Kumar who also resigned, thereafter one Mr. Prashant Kumar, the then Asstt. Manager, Legal was authorized and finally Mr. Arup Srivastava, Legal Manager was the authorized person to conduct the case on behalf of the company. Prashant Kumar, the then Asstt. Manager, Legal was authorized and finally Mr. Arup Srivastava, Legal Manager was the authorized person to conduct the case on behalf of the company. Counsel argued that Arup Srivastava who is CW-1 is definitely not a person who had any proper knowledge about the facts of the case because he was not personally engaged in the affairs of the concerned case on hand at the precise moment of time. Therefore, he is unable to or cannot represent the company as per law. He has referred to the impugned judgment of the case and also pointed out from the judgment that no power of attorney had been proved in his case. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted that the alleged vehicle for which the alleged loan had been taken by the opposite party has already been also seized by the company therefore there is no debt or liability now remaining with the opposite party. Therefore, even on this basis the case against the opposite party No.2 cannot be sustained. FINDINGS: 13. We have gone through the records of the case, the evidences indicated in the records and the arguments of the counsels. At this stage also the argument made by the petitioner company was basically reiteration of what had been argued out on the two occasions in the learned courts below i.e. they had tried to prove the offences as made out according to them under the relevant provisions of the N.I. Act. The company at this stage also tried to put up the defence regarding valid authorization of its personnel or employee by a valid power of attorney to conduct the case in the learned trial court below. Learned counsel for the opposite party basically assailed the case and said it was not maintainable solely because there was no valid power of attorney conveyed to any persons to conduct the case. He also argued that when the vehicle had been seized then no legal liability or debt survives and therefore it is not maintainable. 14. We also had an opportunity to examine the impugned judgment in which learned sessions judge addressed the major issues that have arisen in the case and at the conclusion of his reasonings held that there was merit in the appeal and had set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court below. 14. We also had an opportunity to examine the impugned judgment in which learned sessions judge addressed the major issues that have arisen in the case and at the conclusion of his reasonings held that there was merit in the appeal and had set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court below. The appellant, the opposite party herein was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 15. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted the different persons appointed to conduct the case such as Brajesh Kumar Singh, Prashant Kumar and finally CW-1 Arup Srivastava. The learned court had observed that no single chit of paper had been proved in the case to show that Arup Srivastava was empowered to conduct the case. Also nowhere it is stated that he was the authorized person on behalf of the company to represent it. The learned Sessions Judge on this point therefore concluded that it is a case in which the complainant itself is in dispute. That Arup Srivastava is not an agent authorized by the company. Therefore his evidence also has got no evidentiary value. We are in agreement with the conclusions made by the learned Sessions Judge on this point. We also note that at this stage one Manish Kumar has through power of attorney been appointed to conduct the case at the High Court and this power of attorney is indicated by Annexure-5. We note that this power of attorney is more comprehensive in nature running in few pages with also photographs of other authorized signatories holding responsible position is attached. This power of authority seems to be trying to make up for the lack of proper authorization that was done in the earlier stages of the case. 16. We are also in agreement with the findings of the Sessions Judge that there is a need or requirement of a person to be acquainted with the handwriting of the opposite party as well as his signature. Learned sessions judge observed that a signature and hand writing can be proved when the person who is going to prove the handwriting and signature of the accused, must know or be acquainted with the writing and signature of the accused, or the writing and signature should have been done in his presence. Learned sessions judge observed that a signature and hand writing can be proved when the person who is going to prove the handwriting and signature of the accused, must know or be acquainted with the writing and signature of the accused, or the writing and signature should have been done in his presence. CW-1 Arup Srivastava had clearly deposed in his evidence that the relevant cheque bore the signature of the accused Laxman Prasad and it had been marked as Ext.1. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied his signature on the cheque. We are in agreement with the findings made by the Sessions Judge on this point that this witness had never ever deposed that he is acquainted with the signature or he had worked with Laxman Prasad or that the signature of Laxman Prasad was done in his presence. The accused Laxman Prasad was not even known to him from before. Therefore, the cheque has not been proved legally and it cannot be taken into consideration as an evidence. 17. Regarding the cases which have been cited by the petitioner it is noted that the case of Sampelly Satya Narayan Rao (supra) and Rangappa (supra) essentially address the issue of presumption of debt or liability or the aspect that is dealt with u/s 139 of the N.I.Act 1881. Even the case of Kishan Rao (supra) addresses the issue of presumption of debt or liability. In Kishan Rao (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court also examined the scope of Section 397/ 401 of the Cr.P.C. Ravi Chopra (supra) deals with sending a cheque to the CFSL for examination of the age of a signature. The aforesaid cases and the points that they have addressed though important but in the facts and circumstances in this case do not make out a parallel comparison. On the other hand, one of the essential objections that had been raised is whether the person representing or authorized to conduct the case had been validly authorized or had a power of attorney at all. This does not seem to be the case in the aforesaid cases cited. 18. On the other hand, one of the essential objections that had been raised is whether the person representing or authorized to conduct the case had been validly authorized or had a power of attorney at all. This does not seem to be the case in the aforesaid cases cited. 18. The second issue that had been raised in the case on hand is whether the person who purports to hold this power of attorney, that is Arup Srivastava who is CW-1 can then be an appropriate person to conduct the case when he had no personal knowledge about the case because he was fourth in the line of person deputed or authorized to conduct the case. Therefore, he did not know the opposite side nor was he acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the opposite party at all, and therefore whether such witness or CW-1 could then legally prove or disprove anything is an important question. 19. Finally the case cited by the petitioner, Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had to some extent tried to raise the issue of question of the power of the attorney holder. The issue addressed in Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was regarding the dismissal of the complaint at the threshold on the premise that the individual had not produced the certified copy of the resolution and that was held to be too hasty an action by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The issue of the case on hand is not the same and does not lead to dismissal of the complaint right at the threshold itself. Rather it questions the power of CW-1 or Arup Srivastava and that too in the facts and circumstances of the case that we are dealing with, he was the fourth in series of person so appointed and had no knowledge of the opposite party, nor was he acquainted with his signatures and writing and therefore, was not a competent person to conduct the case or even be a competent witness of the company. In the light of the facts of the case that we are dealing currently we do not see that any of the cases are parallel or appropriate to be cited in defence of the company. 20. In the light of the facts of the case that we are dealing currently we do not see that any of the cases are parallel or appropriate to be cited in defence of the company. 20. Therefore based on the aforesaid observations and reasonings, we see no reason to grant special leave to appeal to assail the judgment of acquittal dated 15.6.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 2013. 21. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. is dismissed.