9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to the order of issue of process for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act based on complaint by power of attorney holder.
1. Power of Attorney Holder Presenting Complaint: The petitioner challenges the process issued based on a complaint presented by a power of attorney holder who also gave a sworn statement. The court refers to a previous ruling stating that a power of attorney holder can present a complaint. 2. Prosecution by Power of Attorney Holder: The petitioner questions whether a power of attorney holder can prosecute criminal proceedings without permission u/s 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it is highlighted that legal representatives must seek permission themselves to continue prosecution or authorize the power of attorney holder. 3. Permission to Prosecute by Power of Attorney Holder: The court discusses a case where legal representatives authorized a power of attorney holder to prosecute proceedings without seeking permission u/s 302. It is emphasized that the legal representatives themselves must apply for permission to prosecute the case through a power of attorney holder. 4. Arguments and Counterarguments: The respondent argues that once permission is granted to legal representatives to prosecute through a power of attorney, no further permission is needed. However, the petitioner's counsel cites a judgment stating that a power of attorney holder may lack personal knowledge of the case. 5. Conclusion and Order: The court clarifies that while a power of attorney holder can present a complaint, prosecution should proceed only after obtaining permission u/s 302. In this case, as the power of attorney holder presented the complaint and process was issued, the court sets aside the order of process issuance and quashes the proceedings. Separate Judgement: The court appreciates the assistance of the appointed Amicus Curiae and fixes his fee to be paid by the Government.
|
