JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned APP for the respondent / State. The present Revision Application is filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Summary Criminal Case No. 752/2009, as well as in Criminal Appeal No.37/2014, decided by the Sessions Judge, Buldhana on 03/08/2020, concurring with the view expressed by the trial Court on merits, but, reducing the sentence by showing leniency to a period of six months instead of one year. 2. The case of the complainant which could be discerned from the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below is to the effect that the complainant - the Buldhana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. initially registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, but, subsequently with the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, coming into force being converted into the Multi-State Co-operative Bank w.e.f. 31st January, 2008 is in the business of advancing loan. The accused being the member of the Society approached for loan and a loan of Rs.25,00,000/-was sanctioned and disbursed in his favour in the year 2006. As per the complainant Society, there was default in payment of installments despite repeated requests for clearance of liability and it is alleged that the accused issued one cheque on 04/04/2009 towards discharge of his part liability and cheque to the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was drawn on the Khamgaon Urban Cooperative Bank, Khamgaon in favour of the complainant Society. When the cheque was presented for its realisation, it could not be honoured and was returned on 06/04/2009 with remarks 'funds insufficient'. The complainant Society thereafter forwarded a legal notice on 09/04/2009, calling upon the accused to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque within 15 days and this notice was duly received by the accused, but, there was failure to clear the amount. This resulted in the Society filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The applicant faced charge under Section 138 of NI Act and was on put on trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana. This resulted in the Society filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The applicant faced charge under Section 138 of NI Act and was on put on trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana. The Judicial Magistrate First Class specifically formulated three points for determination; the first being whether the accused gave the cheque towards the discharge of legal debt or liability, point No.2, whether the cheque was dishonoured and both the points came to be answered in the affirmative. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, one Prashant Kulkarni - the Loan Superintendent appointed by the complainant Society was examined as CW1. During the course of his evidence, he produced before the Court the resolution dated 13/02/2008 as well as authorization in his favour to file the proceedings on behalf of the Society. He also brought on record, the resolution pertaining to sanction of loan, the loan agreement, promissory note executed along with the affidavit, the mortgage deed as well as the subject cheque bearing No.5070730 dated 04/04/2009, copy of demand notice as well as postal receipt and acknowledgment of the said notice being received by the accused. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Magistrate, on appreciating the evidence brought on record, recorded a finding that the accused was advanced a loan of Rs.25,00,000/-, which was payable with interest and installments under the terms stipulated but, there was a default in payment of installment and cheque to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-issued in favour of the complainant could not be honoured. Dealing with the defence that the complainant Society had obtained five blank cheques while sanctioning / disbursing of the loan, did not find favour with the Magistrate who has specifically recorded that except this cheque to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- and in respect of which a complaint was filed, none of the other cheques were placed on record as sought to be projected before the trial Court. Apart from this, it was also recorded that on 02/04/2009, a total outstanding amount of Rs.34,72,621/-, but, the cheque which was issued was only to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-, from which it is clearly established that this was issued to discharge the part liability. Apart from this, it was also recorded that on 02/04/2009, a total outstanding amount of Rs.34,72,621/-, but, the cheque which was issued was only to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-, from which it is clearly established that this was issued to discharge the part liability. The trial Court specifically recorded that in the wake of the presumption to be drawn under Section 139 of the NI Act and when it is found that the signature on the cheque was that of the accused, a presumption came to be drawn that the cheque had been issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt and this presumption was not rebutted by the accused by leading any evidence in any form. 4. On specifically recording that the necessary formalities were complied and there was sufficient evidence on record, to prove that the accused has issued the cheque (Exh.61) towards repayment of loan, it was recorded by the trial Court that the cheque was drawn by the accused for discharge of a legally enforceable debt / liability and since this cheque on its presentation could not be honoured, he was held liable for committing an offence under the NI Act by particularly referring that the cheque could not be honoured due to 'insufficient funds'. After recording the finding that guilt of the accused, the Judicial Magistrate First Class sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant Society. The imprisonment for three months in default was also imposed. 5. On an appeal being filed before the Sessions Judge, Buldhana, in the form of Criminal Appeal No. 37/2014, the learned appellate Court, concurred with the findings rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on both the counts, however, showing a leniency, the Sessions Judge reduced the sentence for a period of six months instead, of one year. 6. I have perused the judgment of the Courts below and I have also heard the learned respective counsel. Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant specifically raised two objections in assailing the impugned judgment, first, being that the complaint is not filed by a person, who was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer and therefore, the institution of the complaint itself is faulty. Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant specifically raised two objections in assailing the impugned judgment, first, being that the complaint is not filed by a person, who was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer and therefore, the institution of the complaint itself is faulty. In support of his submission, he would placed reliance upon Section 52 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, to raise a ground that Mr. Prashant Kulkarni, who has instituted a proceeding and steped into the witness box was not specifically authorized by the Chief Executive Officer. While dealing with the submissions, I have perused the findings rendered by the two Courts below. It is to be noticed that in the examination-in-chief Mr. Prashant Kulkarni, Loan Superintendent has categorically stated to the effect that he was authorized by the Society to institute proceedings for recovery of the loan amount on behalf of the Society and such authorization came to him through resolution passed earlier and also for the specific act of deposing before the Court. He presented the said resolutions which came to be exhibited as Exhs.54 and 55. He identified the contents of the said resolutions, which was signed by the General Manager. He also produced on record, the relevant documents like the loan agreement, affidavit, mortgage deed, etc., which had his signatures. They were exhibited as Exhs.56, 57, 58 and 59. In the cross-examination, a specific suggestion was given to him that he was not authorized by the Bank to institute the proceedings and depose before the Court and that suggestion was specifically denied by him. When the scheme of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 is perused, it can be seen that the Central Registrar is principal functionary, who exercise control over the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act. The directions and management of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies is provided under Chapter V of the said enactment. Section 49 of the Act prescribe powers and functions of the Board which include the power to appoint or remove the Chief Executive Officer or other employees of the Society. The powers and functions of the Chief Executive Officer are enumerated in Section 52 of the Act, which include a power to appoint the person to sue or to be sued on behalf of the Multi-State Cooperative Society. The powers and functions of the Chief Executive Officer are enumerated in Section 52 of the Act, which include a power to appoint the person to sue or to be sued on behalf of the Multi-State Cooperative Society. Apart from this, the Chief Executive Officer is expected to perform such other duties and exercise such powers as are specified in the bye-laws of the Multi-State Co-operative Society.7. In the wake of statutory scheme, when the objection of Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant is specifically dealt with, it can be seen that the person who deposed as CW 1, Mr. Prashant Kulkarni is a Loan Superintendent, who has specifically stated before the Court that he was appointed by the Society to look after the legal matters on its behalf. In his examination-in-chief he has specifically referred to the authorization given by the Society in his favour to initiate the proceedings for recovery of the amount. He had also produced the resolutions on the record authorizing him to prosecute the accused and depose on behalf of the Society. I do not feel that the technical argument that he was not authorized by the Chief Executive Officer should have created a dent in the case of the complainant, as the person who represents the Society was duly authorized to represent him. I therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions advanced by Mr. Thakkar, the learned counsel for the applicant and it was rightly turned down by the Courts below. 8. Dealing with the another submission of Mr. Thakkar that cheque was issued on 04/04/2009 and in fact, proceedings are initiated under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act and Award has been passed by the District Judge by invoking arbitration, it is pertinent to note that this event is subsequent to the issuance of cheque, therefore, the applicant / accused cannot be absolved of the criminal liability that has fallen upon him, when the cheque issued in favour of the complainant Bank for clearance of the liability was dishonoured. In the wake of the above, the submissions of Mr. Thakkar is not worth appreciation since the loan was advanced in the year 2006 and the cheque was issued towards clearance of the part liability to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-. In the wake of the above, the submissions of Mr. Thakkar is not worth appreciation since the loan was advanced in the year 2006 and the cheque was issued towards clearance of the part liability to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-. This submission has also been properly appreciated by the Courts below by taking into consideration the evidence that has been brought on record and particularly by recording that the legal liability in repayment was never denied by the accused. 9. In the wake of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision application and though Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the period of imprisonment should be reduced, I am not impressed by his submissions because in my considered view, the first appellate Court has shown leniency already and reduced the period of sentence to six months. In the wake of the above, by upholding the findings resulting into conviction of the accused as well as imposition of sentence by the appellate Court, the present revision application stands dismissed. 10. At this stage, Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicant make a request that some time may be granted to the applicant / accused and he seeks four weeks time for the said purpose. I deem it appropriate to grant time to the applicant / accused. Let the applicant / accused surrender before the trial Court on or before 9th March, 2023.