Pankaj Mithal JUDGMENT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.B. Sawhney, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties.
2. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure setting aside the orders of the trial court dated 30.01.2018 and 23.07.2018 and that of the Revisional Court dated 26.09.2018.
3. The Appellant-company, M/s. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. awarded a contract to the Respondent-Mahendra Jain for shifting of 33 K.V. electrical overhead line at its plant at Dewas. In connection with the said contract, the Appellant-company by mistake made excess payment. The Respondent agreed to refund the excess amount and issued two cheques to the Appellant-company for its refund. The cheques were dishonoured on account of instructions "stop payment".
4. The Appellant-company through its authorised representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas Under Section 138 read with Section 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said complaint, Respondent moved two applications-first alleging that the complaint has not been filed by an authorised person and the second alleging that Kavindersingh Anand cannot depose before the court as the complaint nowhere states that he is having knowledge about the facts and the transactions.
5. The first application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 30.01.2018. The second application was rejected on 23.07.2018 whereupon a criminal revision was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2018. These three orders were assailed by the Respondent by invoking jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the petition filed Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and has ordered for setting aside the above orders on the ground that the complaint was not filed by the person authorised as Kavindersingh Anand, who was given the power of attorney, had no authority of law to sub-delegate the said power to the authorised representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli. Secondly, on the ground that Kavindersingh Anand is not authorised to depose on behalf of the company.
6. In support, reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 
MANU/SC/0934/2013 : (2014) 11 SCC 790.
7. The Apex Court through the above decision has laid down the following principles:
i) Filing of a........