ACHUTHA B. SHETTY S/O K. BABU SHETTY, ABHYUDAYA ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETOR Vs. SRI GOKARNANATHA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., UDUPI BRANCH REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DEVADAS S/O LATE K.P. SANIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed, for admission with the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent, matter has been taken up fox final ha axing and is being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PETITIONER herein has come up with this revision petition challenging this correctness and legality of the order of dismissal of Crl.A. No. 155/2007 passed by FTC -I, Udupi, dated 11.3.2008, and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Udupi in cc.No.6208/2004 whereby he is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 133 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months, out of the fine amount, Rs. 1,95,000/ -shall be paid to the respondent by way of compensation and Rs. 5000/ - shall be deposited as fine to the state exchequer.

(3.) THE main grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of filing the complaint through the Manager, the respondent -bank did not authorise him to do so but subsequently authorised some other person to prosecute the case but the authorisation letter is not produced. Therefore the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is to be sat aside, since complaint is presented without authorisation and subsequently the person to whom they, said to have authorised has not produced any authorisation letter. It is further argued that the petitioner be acquitted of the aforesaid offence, on account of no authorisation to prosecute the case by the respondent through its Manager. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a decision rendered by this; court in the case of Om Shakthi SC/ST and Minority Crdit Co -Operative Society Ltd. v. M. Venkatesh ILR 2007 Kar. 5126 wherein it has been held that presentation of the complaint by the society through its President without authorisation it bad in law and therefore complaint is not maintainable, while arguing the case, learned Counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of its judgment therefore it is submitted that the revision petition be allowed. Again, he has referred to Section 142 of N.I. Act.