VASAVI CHIT FUNDS Vs. B ESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.V.N. Acharya, Counsel representing the appellant, Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor and also Sri B.P. Raju, counsel representing R-1 and R-2.

(2.) Sri D.V.N. Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellant had pointed out that there is no controversy relating to the fact that A-2 had issued the cheques Exs. P-3 and P-4. The learned counsel also would submit that there is no serious controversy relating to Exs. P-1 and P-2, the promissory notes executed by the accused. The counsel also would submit that it is no doubt true A-1 had not issued any cheque to appellant-complainant. However, the counsel would submit that as far as A-2 is concerned, acquittal was recorded on the ground that the complainant had no authorization to represent the complainant/registered partnership firm. This approach of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Eluru is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The counsel also placed reliance on GeekayExim (India) Ltd., and others v. State of Gujarat and another.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor wound contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, recording acquittal on the ground that complaint is not maintainable as against A-2 also on the ground of want of authorization to represent the partnership firm, especially in the light of the fact that P.W. 1 is the Managing partner, cannot be sustained.