ORDER : S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. Petitioner-accused is before this Court assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2023 passed in CC.No.1238/2020 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/2023 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, by judgment and order dated31.08.2023. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in CC.No.1238/2020 before the Trial Court. 4. It is the case of the respondent-complainant that petitioner is the customer of the respondent-firm and he had purchased fuel worth Rs.2,70,120/- from the petrol bunk of the respondent. Towards repayment of the amount due with interest, petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.026916 dated 31.12.2018 for a total sum of Rs.3,31,133/- drawn on Bank of India, Chikkamagaluru Branch, in favour of the respondent. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for realization, and thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner, and since the petitioner had not paid the amount covered under the cheque in question inspite of service of statutory notice on him, the respondent-firm had initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the jurisdictional court of Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section138 of the N.I.Act. 4. The petitioner in response to the summons received by him from the Trial Court in CC.No.1238/2020, had appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty. 5. The respondent-firm in order to substantiate its case against the petitioner, had examined PW-1 - Mithun before the Trial Court and also produced five documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5. Petitioner had not led any defence evidence, nor had produced any documents in support of his defence. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed in CC.No.1238/2020, had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.4,40,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/2023 by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2023. It is under these circumstances, petitioner-accused is before this Court. 6. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.88/2023 by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2023. It is under these circumstances, petitioner-accused is before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-1 has not produced any material before the Trial Court to show that he was authorized to represent the respondent-firm. It was also disputed that PW-1 was the Manager of the respondent-firm. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MILIND SRIPAD CHANDURKAR VS KALIM M.KHAN & ANOTHER - (2011) 4 SCC 275 , and also on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Crl.A.No.968/2007 disposed of on 16.06.2025. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below and submits that in the complaint as well as in the cause title of the complaint, it is clearly stated that PW-1 is the Manager of the respondent-firm. He submits that perusal of the cross- examination of PW-1 would go to show that transaction between the parties is admitted. The signature found in the cheque in question is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the cheque has been drawn on the bank account maintained by the petitioner. Therefore, there is a presumption against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LTD. VS M/S. SMS ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED - AIR 2022 SC 1315 . Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. It is the case of the complainant-firm that petitioner was its customer and fuel was supplied from its bunk to the petitioner on credit basis and he was due to the tune of Rs.2,70,120/- for having purchased fuel for the period from 29.12.2016 to 07.02.2017. Towards repayment of the amount due with interest, petitioner had allegedly issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.3,31,133/- after there was exchange of communication between the parties. 9. Towards repayment of the amount due with interest, petitioner had allegedly issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.3,31,133/- after there was exchange of communication between the parties. 9. Perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1 would go to show that the transaction between the parties is not in dispute. It was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that towards purchase of fuel from the respondent-firm, bills were issued to the petitioner and towards advance payment, petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent-firm. PW-1 has stated that for the period from 29.12.2016 to 07.02.2017, petitioner was due to pay towards fuel supplied, a total sum of Rs.3,70,120/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid as advance, petitioner was due to pay Rs.2,70,120/-. He has also stated that all the documents with regard to transactions are available with the respondent-firm. 10. Petitioner has not disputed his signature found in the cheque and it is also not in dispute that the cheque in question has drawn on the bank account maintained by the petitioner in Canara Bank at Chikkamagaluru. The cheque in question has been issued towards repayment of the amount due to the respondent-firm. The complaint has been filed by the respondent-firm represented by its Manager who is examined as PW-1 before the Trial Court. Though PW-1 has stated that he is working as a Manager in the respondent-firm and he is aware of the transaction between the firm and the petitioner, he has not produced any material before the Trial Court to show either he was working as a Manager in the respondent- firm or that he was authorized to represent the respondent-firm. 10. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, it has come on record that Dr. D.L.Vijay Kumar is the Proprietor of the respondent-firm. It was suggested to PW-1 that he is not the Manager of the firm and that he is not authorized to file the complaint. However, no material was placed on record by the respondent to show PW-1 was its Manager or authorized representative. Inspite of the same, the Trial Court had held the petitioner guilty for the alleged offence and has convicted him. However, no material was placed on record by the respondent to show PW-1 was its Manager or authorized representative. Inspite of the same, the Trial Court had held the petitioner guilty for the alleged offence and has convicted him. The Appellate Court also has failed to appreciate that no material was produced before the Trial Court to show that the respondent-complainant was represented by its authorized representative or that PW-1 was working as the Manager in the respondent-firm. 11. In Milind Shripad Chandurkar's case, the cheque in question was issued in favour of the proprietor concerned, whereas the complaint was filed by Milind Shripad Chandurkar claiming to be the sole Proprietor of the proprietary concern. Since the complainant had failed to prove that he was the sole proprietor of the firm concerned, it was held in the said case that complainant - Milind Shripad Chandurkar had no locus standi to file the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 12. In K.Ramanchandran's case supra, the accused was due to pay money to the firm and the Manager of the firm in his individual capacity had initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is under such circumstances, the High Court of Kerala had held that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. 13. So far as the present case is concerned, the cheque in question is issued to the respondent-firm and the complaint is filed in the name of the respondent-firm represented by its Manager. The Manager of the respondent-firm has not initiated the proceedings in his individual capacity. However, the fact remains that the Manager of the respondent-firm who was examined as PW-1 before the Trial Court, had failed to produce any material before the Trial Court to show that he was working as the Manager of the respondent-firm or that he was authorized by the respondent-firm to file the complaint and initiate proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Under the said circumstances, when the petitioner had disputed that PW-1 was not the authorized representative of the respondent-firm, the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The Appellate Court also has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 14. Under the said circumstances, when the petitioner had disputed that PW-1 was not the authorized representative of the respondent-firm, the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The Appellate Court also has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 14. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, it has come on record that towards payment of the amount due, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent- firm. Several suggestions made to PW-1 on behalf of the petitioner would clearly go to show that the transaction between the parties is not in dispute. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to remanded to the Trial Court for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the respondent- firm to prove that the complaint was filed through its authorized representative/Manager. 15. The judgment in M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd.'s case supra on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. The said judgment was rendered in a case where the proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act was quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC. It is under the said circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it is open for the accused to dispute that the person who has initiated the proceedings had no authorization during the course of trial and the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The same is not the fact situation in the present case. Accordingly, the following order: 16. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.02.2023 passed in CC.No.1238/2020 by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, and the judgment and order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.No.88/2023, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh and if necessary grant an opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence.