9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a power of attorney can file a complaint of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Who should provide the sworn statement or be examined before the Magistrate for taking cognizance. 3. Whether the recording of the statement by the complainant in person is imperative even if the complainant has not witnessed the transaction but has dealt through a power of attorney. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether a power of attorney can file a complaint of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The court examined the definitions of "payee," "holder," and "holder in due course" under the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). It was concluded that the holder of a cheque, which is dishonored, is entitled to file a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act. The court held that filing a complaint by a power of attorney is permissible and competent, as the agent can perform acts related to negotiable instruments on behalf of the principal. This conclusion is supported by the definitions and provisions under the N.I. Act and the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. 2. Who should provide the sworn statement or be examined before the Magistrate for taking cognizance: The court emphasized the importance of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the examination of the complainant on oath to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case. The purpose of this examination is to bring legal evidence on record and ensure the truth surfaces. The court noted that the complainant's sworn statement is imperative, as it helps the Magistrate decide whether to issue process. However, the introduction of Section 145 of the N.I. Act allows the complainant's evidence to be given by affidavit, which can be read in evidence, thus potentially dispensing with the need for a sworn statement. 3. Whether the recording of the statement by the complainant in person is imperative even if the complainant has not witnessed the transaction but has dealt through a power of attorney: The court held that if the complainant has not witnessed the transaction and all dealings were through the power of attorney, the power of attorney can be the witness. If the transactions were witnessed by both the complainant and the power of attorney, both should be witnesses. The power of attorney, who has witnessed the transaction, can file the complaint and provide the necessary evidence. The court concluded that the power of attorney being a witness does not disentitle them from providing evidence. Conclusion: The court concluded that: - Filing a complaint through a power of attorney is legal and competent. - The complainant must provide a sworn statement if they are the sole witness to the transaction. - If the power of attorney has witnessed the transaction, they can be the witness. - The requirement of recording the complainant's statement can be substantially dispensed with by Section 145 of the N.I. Act, allowing evidence by affidavit. - The petition challenging the power of attorney's ability to be a witness and file a complaint was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
|
