JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No. 106/3 of 2004, dated 30.03.2010, vide which respondent-accused stand acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that complainant/appellant is a duly incorporated and registered Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Chambaghat, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. with the Registrar of Companies at Jallandhar vide Registration No. 0608245 dated 05.04.1988. Earlier the Complainant-Company was named known as 'Himalyan Plastic Private Limited' and later on it was converted into a 'Limited Company' under Sections 31/44 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide order of the Registrar of Companies dated 05.01.2001. As such, now it is known as 'Himalyan Plastic Limited'. All the liabilities, rights, assets etc. of M/s. Himalyan Plastic Private Limited have been taken over by M/s. Himalyan Plastic Limited. The Complainant-Company has its registered office and works at Chambaghat, Tehsil, and District Solan H.P. Sh. Madan Sharma is the Managing Director and responsible officer of the Company and he is duly authorized and is competent to maintain this appeal, adduce evidence to depose on oath and to engage the services of counsel and generally to do all lawful acts, deeds and things which may be necessary for the said purpose. The present complaint has been filed through Sita Ram Verma, who has been duly authorized through a general power of attorney by the Managing Director of the complainant Company, Madan Sharma. The Complainant-Company deals in the business of manufacturing and sale of HDPE Pipes, fittings, sprinkler, drip irrigation systems, PIR (Silicon coated) HDPE Telecom. Duct. The accused was earlier purchasing the above material on credit basis form the Complainant-Company as per the business practice. In order to discharge the part of the liability and for consideration, the accused issued cheque duly signed by him in favour of Complainant-Company bearing Cheque No. 608301 on 23.6.2003 for Rs. 11,79,500/- drawn on PNB Hailey Mandi, Gurgaon, Haryana on his account No. 752 with the assurance that the same would be honoured on its presentation under its bank in all circumstances. 11,79,500/- drawn on PNB Hailey Mandi, Gurgaon, Haryana on his account No. 752 with the assurance that the same would be honoured on its presentation under its bank in all circumstances. Accordingly, complainant deposited the said cheque in the State Bank of India, The Mall Solan for encashment. The said banker of the Complainant-Company forwarded the said cheque to the drawee bank for presentation/realization, but to the utter surprise of the Complainant-Company, the said cheque was returned as unpaid by the drawee bank vide its cheque returning memo dated 22.8.2003, indicating the reason "insufficient funds" and this information was given to the complainant-Company by the State Bank of India, The Mall Solan vide letter dated 27.8.2003. The said Cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds to the credit of accused. After the receipt of the said cheque as unpaid, complainant company issued a registered AD notice dated 9.9.2003 sent on 10.09.2003 at two correct addresses of the accused requiring him to make the payment of the said dishonoured cheque to the complainant company within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Notice was also sent separately under postal certification. The notices were duly received by the accused on 15.9.2003, but in spite of having received the notices, the accused failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque to the Complainant- Company. The period mentioned in the notice expired on 30.9.2003. Since the accused had failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque within the 15 days from 15.9.2003 and the period mentioned in the notice expired, so the accused is guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. It has also been stated in the complaint by the Complainant-Company that the cause of action for filling the complaint arose to the Complainant-Company on 1.10.2003 and further when the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and further on 9.9.2003 when notice was issued and sent on 10.9.2003, which was received by the accused on 15.9.2003. The cause of the action also arose when the accused failed to make payment within 15 days from 30.9.2003. It has, therefore, been prayed that the accused may be summoned, dealt with and punished as per provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 3. The complaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court after due trial. 4. The cause of the action also arose when the accused failed to make payment within 15 days from 30.9.2003. It has, therefore, been prayed that the accused may be summoned, dealt with and punished as per provisions of Section 138 of the Act. 3. The complaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court after due trial. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has maintained the instant appeal before this Court. 5. I have heard Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jitender Pal, learned counsel for respondent-accused and Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent-State and also gone through the records of the case. 6. Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the present case is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts viz. 2001 (1) Apex Court Journal 617 (SC), titled as Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee; 2004 (3) Criminal Court Cases 478 (P & H), titled as M/s. Thapar Agro Mills & Anr. Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.; 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 238 (AP), titled as Surana Securities Ltd. Vs. G. Kamalakar & Anr.; 2009 (1) Criminal Court Cases 360 (SC), titled as National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.; 2010 (11) Supreme court Cases 441, titled as Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan; 2012 (3) Criminal Court Cases 853 (Delhi)v, titled as Manoj Sharma Vs. Anil Aggarwal; 2014 (2) Criminal Court Cases 246 (SC), titled as Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura. 2015 (3) Criminal Court Cases 059 (SC), titled as T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari; 2016 (10) Supreme Court Cases 458, titled as Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited; Latest HLJ 2017 (HP), titled as Pushap Raj Vs. Ramdhan; Latest HLJ 2017 (HP) 1326, titled as Gian Chand Vs. Vijay Sood; 2018 (2) Sml. LC 944, titled as M/s. Mohan Meaking Limited Vs. M/s. Spirit and Beverages L-1; 2018 (8) Supreme Court Cases 165, titled as Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda; 2019 (4) Supreme Court Cases 197, titled as Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar; 2019 (10) Supreme Court Cases 203, titled as Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar Vs. Shivkumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav and 2021 (5) Supreme Court Cases 283, titled as Kalamani Tex and another Vs. P. Balasubramanian. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shankargouda; 2019 (4) Supreme Court Cases 197, titled as Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar; 2019 (10) Supreme Court Cases 203, titled as Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar Vs. Shivkumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav and 2021 (5) Supreme Court Cases 283, titled as Kalamani Tex and another Vs. P. Balasubramanian. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Jitender Pal, learned counsel for the respondent-accused argued that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complaint is not filed by the authorized person and is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. He has further argued that Madan Sharma was never the Managing Director of the Company, as no document has been produced or proved on record and the only document is Memorandum of Association i.e. Ext. CW1/B, and the same is nowhere contains the name of Mr. Madan Sharma as Managing Director. He further argued that even the list of Directors, which is allegedly filed is not a copy of the proceedings duly attested and it is simply a typed copy and is totally unreliable in evidence and no reliance can be placed on the same. He further argued that Madan Sharma, Managing Director, allegedly authorizing Mr. Sita Ram Verma to maintain the complaint is without any basis as neither Sita Ram Verma was having any authority nor Madan Sharma was any authority to Sita Ram Verma and even otherwise also there is no alleged authority letter produced or proved on record. He has further argued that Ext. PW1/C is a simple Power of Attorney and nothing more. He further argued that Yash Ram how connected with the affairs of the agency has not been explained by the complainant and in that eventuality also the complaint is not maintainable. He has referred to the statement of Sita Ram Verma and puts emphasis on his examination-in-chief to show that the complaint was not maintainable and the same cannot be pursued and maintained by authorized person. He further argued that there is nothing on record with regard to the amount due for some consideration. He further argued that as per Sita Ram Verma, the transaction took place at Gurgaon and no transaction took place at Solan and even on that count also, the complaint was not maintainable. He further argued that there is nothing on record with regard to the amount due for some consideration. He further argued that as per Sita Ram Verma, the transaction took place at Gurgaon and no transaction took place at Solan and even on that count also, the complaint was not maintainable. He further argued that Sita Ram Verma in his cross examination specially admitted that he has no knowledge with regard to the transaction, and the time of transaction, with the respondent- accused, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this count also. 8. Mr. Jitender Pal, learned counsel for the respondent-accused has cited various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts viz. 1999 (2) Civil Court Cases 553 (P & H), titled as Meeta Rai Vs. Gulshan Mahajan; 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 504 (SC, titled as M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.; 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 803 (Madras), titled as Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Bhojarajan; 2007 (4), Civil Court Cases 385, titled as Director, Maruti Feeds & Farms Private Limited, Dharwad Vs. Basanna Pattekar; 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases 381 (Rajasthan) (DB), titled as M/s. United Construction Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; 2011 (2) Civil Court Cases 690 (SC), titled as Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr.; 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 619 (Kerala), titled as Santhi Vs. Mary Sherly; 2012 (4) Civil Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan), titled as Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2013 (2) Civil Court Cases 107 (SC) titled as Vijay Vs. Laman & Anr.; 2016 (1) Criminal Court Cases 364 (Delhi), titled as Hans Kumar Jain Vs. Renu Gandotra @ Poonam; 2016 (3) Civil Court Cases 654 (Bombay), titled as Sachin Food Processor Vs. Sanjay T. Pathak (Kulkarni); 2018 (2) Civil Court Cases 530 (Kerala), titled as Susamma Raju Vs. K.M. Wilson; 2018 (4) Civil Court Cases 619 (Bombay), titled as Ghanshyamdas Lalchand Chandak Vs. Sheikh Hamid Sheikh Gulab & Anr.; 2019 (3) Apex Court Judgments 732 (SC), titled as B. Krishna Reddy Vs. Syed Hafeez (Died) per LR. Smt. Naseema Begum & Anr.; 2020 (3) RCR (Criminal) Kerala High Court, titled as Abdulkhader Vs. C. Pankajakshan Nambiar and Ors.; 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 724 (Gujarat), titled as M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited Vs. Sheikh Hamid Sheikh Gulab & Anr.; 2019 (3) Apex Court Judgments 732 (SC), titled as B. Krishna Reddy Vs. Syed Hafeez (Died) per LR. Smt. Naseema Begum & Anr.; 2020 (3) RCR (Criminal) Kerala High Court, titled as Abdulkhader Vs. C. Pankajakshan Nambiar and Ors.; 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 724 (Gujarat), titled as M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited Vs. Pooja Narayana Khetan and 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 438 (Kerala)(DB), titled as K. Basheer Vs. C.K. Usman Koya. 9. Mr. Jitender Pal, learned counsel for respondent-accused has further argued that the authority letter which is on record is not an authority letter. The authority letter Ext. CW1/E nowhere contains the stamp of the Company nor it binds the Company for the act of the person's authorized. 10. The cumulative reading of all the judgments shows that the law already stands settled as on date is that after the presentation of the cheque even after the second time and its dishonoring, the complaint can be maintained after issuing notice as per the provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same process will start after dishonor of the cheque for the second time as if it has dishonored for the first time till the time the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid. 11. The cheque should have been issued for consideration and the complainant is required to prove the consideration when in defence it is the case of the accused that the cheque was given not for consideration but as a security only. 12. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case wherein Sita Ram Verma deposed that he was general power of attorney of the complainant-Company through whom the present complaint was filed. He further deposed on that the complainant Company was earlier registered as Himalyan Plastic Pvt. Ltd., but later on its name was changed to M/s. Himalyan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. To prove this fact he has proved the memorandum and articles of association as Ex. CW1/B where three Directors amongst whom Madan Sharma is the Managing Director. He also identified the lists of Directors as Ex. CW1/C, the authority letters purportedly executed in his favour by the Company is Ex. CW1/D and Ex. CW1/B where three Directors amongst whom Madan Sharma is the Managing Director. He also identified the lists of Directors as Ex. CW1/C, the authority letters purportedly executed in his favour by the Company is Ex. CW1/D and Ex. CW1/E. He further stated that the complainant Company was dealing in the business of manufacturing and sale of HDFC pipes, sprinkler pipes and irrigation systems and the accused was the proprietor of Neelam Fawara Agency and that he used to purchase sprinkler pipes and accessories form the complainant Company on credit basis and the accused had issued a Cheque Ex. CW1/F against account maintained by the Company in respect of the above trade transactions that the said cheque was presented to SBI, Solan for encashment which was forwarded to PNB i.e. the drawer bank for collection. The said cheque could not be encashed for want of sufficient funds and information pertaining to the same was sent by the drawer bank vide memos Ex. CW1/G and Ex. CW1/H and thereafter information was received by the complainant vide memo Ex. CW1/J and thereafter legal notice Ex. CW1/K was sent through the counsel on the correct address of the accused which was received by him on 15.9.2003. The said notice was sent through RAD as well as UPC and receipts thereof were Ex. CW1/M and Ex. CW1/N. He further stated that the accused did not make the payment after receipt of notice till date. In his cross-examination, he testified that he had brought accounts statement in the Court but could produce the same in case Court required the same. He further deposed that he was General Power of Attorney of the complainant Company. He admitted the suggestion that the alleged authorization letter Ex. CW1/D did not have any stamp of the Company and the list of present Directors of the complainant Company Ex. CW1/C also did not have any stamp but it was typed one. He further admitted that no date was mentioned on the list of the Directors Ex. CW1/C that he had not filed any affidavit pertaining to withdrawal of authority in his favour. Self stated that the authority granted in his favour has not been withdrawn. He further admitted that no stamp was there on Ex. CW1/E and only printed stamp was there. CW1/C that he had not filed any affidavit pertaining to withdrawal of authority in his favour. Self stated that the authority granted in his favour has not been withdrawn. He further admitted that no stamp was there on Ex. CW1/E and only printed stamp was there. He further deposed that the accused was neither a dealer nor the customer of the complainant Company and no purchase order was being issued by the complainant Company pertaining to the credit purchase and he could not tell the worth of goods allegedly purchased by the accused from the complainant Company. Self stated that the accused had purchased goods from the complainant Company on many occasions but he had not brought the requisite record but the same had been prepared by the Company. He further stated that the goods were sent to the accused from Gurgaon. He denied the suggestions that when business transactions started between the accused and the complainant Company, a blank cheque was taken from the accused. He could not tell as to whether the goods purchased by the accused pertained to agriculture or not. He denied the suggestions that the legal notice Ex. CW1/A was duly replied by the accused through his counsel. He further denied the suggestions that the present case had been filed by the complainant Company for taking a revenge against the accused since he had stopped purchasing goods from them. 13. CW-2 Ramesh Sharma Sr. Assistant State Bank of India is Official witness who deposed that the complainant Company was keeping a CCA account with their bank. He further deposed that cheque Ex. CW1/A was presented in their bank for encashment on 7.8.2003 and the said cheque was sent to PNB, Gurgaon i.e. the drawee bank where from it was returned back dishonored and intimation in this regard was given by the drawee bank vide memo Ex. CW1/H. Later on the bank informed the complainant Company of the dishonor the cheque, vide memo Ex. CW1/J on 27.8.2003 and they had charged Rs. 2,429/- on account of realization charges from the complainant Company. He further stated that the said statement of account had duly been attested as Bankers Book of Evidence Act. The statement pertaining presentation and dishonor of cheque was also proved as Ex. CW2/B. This witness was put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing material could be extracted therefrom. Inter alia, he admitted that statements Ex. He further stated that the said statement of account had duly been attested as Bankers Book of Evidence Act. The statement pertaining presentation and dishonor of cheque was also proved as Ex. CW2/B. This witness was put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing material could be extracted therefrom. Inter alia, he admitted that statements Ex. CW1/A an Ex. CW1/B did not mention designation of the issuing authority. He further admitted that first two pages of the statement of account had not been certified and even the stamp of the bank was not there on the said page. He denied the suggestions that the cheque in question had not been received for encashment in their bank and it was not sent to drawer bank for encashment. 14. P.R. Kaushik, Clerk, PNB, Hailey Mandi, District Gurgaon, Haryana, brought the requisite record from the said bank. He deposed that the accused was keeping an account with their bank. He further deposed that cheque Ex. CW1/F was received for encashment from SBI, Solan on 22.7.2003 but the same was not encashed and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. He proved the statements of account of the accused as Ext. CW3/A which was signed by the Manager of the bank. He further proved the copy of cheque returning register as Ex. CW3/B by comparing the same with the original. In the similar manner, he also identified the memos pertaining to dishonour of the cheque as Ex. CW1/G and Ex. CW1/H. In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that the record produced by him in the Court had not been certified under the Bankers Book of Evidence Act and that even the statement of account, Ex. CW3/A had not been certified as per the said Act. He could not tell as to whether the cheque Ex. CW1/F pertained to the account of the accused. He admitted the suggestion that the stamp of the bank was not there on the memos Ex. CW1/G and Ex. CW1/H and even the designation of the person signing over the same has not been mentioned. Self stated that signatures were of one Raj Singh, Special Assistant. He denied the suggestion that the cheque was not received by their bank for encashment and that he was deposing falsely in connivance with the complainant. 15. CW1/G and Ex. CW1/H and even the designation of the person signing over the same has not been mentioned. Self stated that signatures were of one Raj Singh, Special Assistant. He denied the suggestion that the cheque was not received by their bank for encashment and that he was deposing falsely in connivance with the complainant. 15. After analyzing the evidence on record, it is clear that Sita Ram Verma was not authorized as per the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company nor he was a Principal Officer of the Company and his title to maintain the present complaint was to be considered vis-à-vis. his capacity to depose in the Court of law. Though, we may proceed with the presumption that he was having authority to proceed with the complaint as he was working with the Company. Then the second question arises whether the onus which shifted on the complainant that the cheque was not issued for consideration and it was only a security amount has been discharged. The answer is that onus was not discharged as the company which is supposed to maintain the accounts of which are to be maintained in the regular course of business for all intents and purposes should have shown the sale and those documents should have produced by the complainant company in the Court as the sale would have been the consideration for the cheque. Failure of the same shows that the cheque was only issued as a security. The witnesses of the complainant nowhere able to prove that the cheque was for the supplies made and it was for consideration. 16. In these circumstances this Court holds that after applying the law that the findings as recorded by the learned court below call for no interference even after re-appreciating the evidence. 17. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 18. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 20. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 20. The net result of the above discussion is that the appellant/complainant-Company has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality and infirmity in the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court. 21. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.