UCO BANK Vs. SULBHA MANGESH NAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Timble, learned Counsel for the appellantBank and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1.

(2.) The original complainant is before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 11.11.2011, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 83/NI/2007/F.

(3.) The brief facts are that the appellant is a Banking Company. The appellant had advanced a loan to the respondent no. 1 and towards repayment of the outstanding dues, the respondent no. 1 issued a cheque, which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The appellant therefore, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate. It appears that the complaint was signed by one Ramakrishna Naik, who was the then Branch Manager of the Bank at Margao branch. The appellant also produced a Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Ramakrishna Naik at the time of verification of the complaint. It appears that the learned Magistrate recorded verification of Shri Ramakrishna Naik and issued process against the respondent. At the trial, one Shri M.D. Ravi being the then Branch Manager was examined as prosecution witness and yet another Power of Attorney in favour of Shri M.D. Ravi, was produced at Exhibit-51. The respondent no. 1 came with various defences, however, the learned Magistrate found that the complaint can be disposed of on a preliminary issue. The learned Magistrate held that the complaint was not filed by a duly authorised representative of the appellant. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that, Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Ramakrishna Naik has not been formally referred to in the evidence.