Witness authorisation for company testimony must be proved by proper resolution or authority, sustaining acquittal under cheque dishonour law.

A company can depose only through a witness who is duly authorised under its Articles of Association or by a specific Board resolution. Where the alleged representative produced no documentary proof of directorship or authorisation, and no Board resolution was placed on record, the court could rightly treat the witness as unauthorised. On that basis, the finding of lack of proof of authority was upheld and no ground was made out to interfere with the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant-company's witness was duly authorised to depose on its behalf and whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference.

Analysis: The witness asserted that he was a Director authorised to represent the company, but produced no documentary proof of his directorship or authorisation. No resolution of the Board was placed on record, and in cross-examination he expressed ignorance about any such resolution. As a company is a juristic person, a person deposing on its behalf must be authorised under the Articles of Association or by a specific resolution.

Conclusion: The finding that the witness was not proved to be authorised was justified, and no ground was made out to interfere with the acquittal.

---