JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. 1. These appeals under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. have been filed by the Complainant against the common judgment in C.C. No. 682/1999 and C.C. No. 694/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam. The complaints have been filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act). 2. The Complainant in both the cases is M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Complainant-Company is represented by its power of attorney holder, E. Simon Zacharia. The first accused is a partnership firm and accused no. 2 and 3 are its partners. According to the Complainant, the accused were having business transactions with the Complainant-Company and in the said transactions, had issued cheques in discharge of their liability, which on presentation before the bank were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Notice was issued to the accused and thereafter Complaints under Section 142 of the Act were filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. After the private complaints were taken on file, the accused three in number, appeared before the court below on receipt of summons. Copies of the relevant records were furnished to them and the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty. As per order in C.M.P. No. 11431/2002, joint trial of the two cases, namely, C.C. No. 682/1999 and C.C. No. 694/1999 was allowed by the trial court. The first accused is a partnership firm in which the second and third accused are stated to be the partners. The third accused died pending trial. On the side of the Complainant, PW-1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The accused on questioning under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them. On the side of the accused, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D22 were marked. 3. The third accused died pending trial. On the side of the Complainant, PW-1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The accused on questioning under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them. On the side of the accused, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D22 were marked. 3. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the court below by the impugned judgment, found the accused not guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act in both the cases and acquitted them under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. On the point as to whether the power of attorney who has filed the complaint, has locus-standi either to file a complaint or to adduce evidence by representing the Company, has been found against the Complainant. 4. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the court below. 5. Admittedly, the Complainant is a private limited Company. The complaint is seen filed by one E. Simon Zacharia, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the Complainant-Company. The said person is seen examined as PW-1 on behalf of the Complainant. Exts.P1 and P1(a) have been produced to substantiate the contention that PW-1 has been authorised to represent the Company. On going through Exts.P1 and P1(a), it shows that the Company has by way of a power of attorney dated 25.06.2021 authorised the Managing Director to act on its behalf. It further says that Clause 15 of the power of attorney, has invested the Managing Director with the authority to further delegate the powers and in exercise of that power, the Managing Director has nominated Simon Zacharia, as the attorney of the Company to act on behalf of the Company. However, the said document has not been produced. Apparently, the person who has filed the complaint and given evidence as PW-1, is not the person authorised by the Company. On the other hand, the authorised power of attorney of the Company is the Managing Director. A delegatee cannot further delegate his powers to another person. Unless he is empowered to do so [See A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 630 and Basheer M.K. vs. State of Kerala, 2016 (3) KHC 873 ]. 6. On the other hand, the authorised power of attorney of the Company is the Managing Director. A delegatee cannot further delegate his powers to another person. Unless he is empowered to do so [See A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 630 and Basheer M.K. vs. State of Kerala, 2016 (3) KHC 873 ]. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant referred to the decision in M.M.T.C. Ltd. vs. Medichl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 234 , in which it has been held that a complaint filed in the name and on behalf of the Company by its employee without necessary authorisation, is nonetheless maintainable and that want of authorisation can be rectified even at a subsequent stage and that the Company can send a person who is competent to represent the Company at a subsequent stage also and on that ground, the complaint could not be quashed. It is true that a complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold and an opportunity can be granted to rectify the defect if any seen in the filing of the complaint. 7. Section 142 of the Act says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138, except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or as the case may be, the holder in due course in the cheque. Apparently the person who has filed the complaint and has adduced evidence as PW-1, is not the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, which fact is admitted. He is only an employee of the Company. That being the position, the court below was right in holding that the complaint is not maintainable, as it has not been filed by a person as contemplated under Clause (a) of Section 142 of the Act. Further, the court below has also gone into the merits of the case and held that an offence under Section 138 has not been made out. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the findings of the court below. 8. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeals. Hence the same are dismissed. 9. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.