9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the complaint filed by a power of attorney holder under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Impact of the death of the original complainant on the trial proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Complaint Filed by a Power of Attorney Holder: The primary issue revolves around whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be validly filed by a power of attorney holder of the payee. The original complainant filed the complaint through his son and power of attorney holder. The respondent challenged the cognizance taken by the Magistrate, arguing that Section 142 of the Act mandates that the complaint must be filed by the payee or holder in due course personally. The judgment clarifies that Section 142(a) of the Act specifies that the court shall not take cognizance of any offence except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder in due course. However, it does not explicitly state that the complaint must be filed personally by the payee. The court referred to Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, which allows the donee of a power of attorney to execute acts on behalf of the donor, making such acts legally effective as if done by the donor. The court cited precedents from various High Courts, including Kerala, Punjab and Haryana, and Calcutta, which upheld that a power of attorney holder could validly file a complaint under Section 142 of the Act. The judgment emphasized that the legal position is that the power of attorney holder can perform acts on behalf of the payee, and such acts are legally recognized as if done by the payee himself. 2. Impact of the Death of the Original Complainant on the Trial Proceedings: The second issue addressed is the effect of the death of the original complainant on the continuation of the trial. The original complainant died after the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence. The court held that once cognizance is taken, the trial must proceed to its logical conclusion according to law, regardless of the complainant's death. The judgment noted that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Negotiable Instruments Act that mandates the abatement of proceedings due to the complainant's death. The legal heirs of the deceased complainant are entitled to seek substitution and continue the prosecution. The court referred to decisions from the Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, which supported the view that the trial does not abate upon the complainant's death and can be continued by the legal heirs. Conclusion: The court concluded that the learned Sessions judge erred in dismissing the complaint based on the argument that it was not filed by the payee personally. The judgment reinstated the complaint and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the trial, allowing the legal heirs of the deceased complainant to file an application for substitution. The court also rejected the respondent's request to stay the operation of the order, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the case filed in 1994.
|
