9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also he has the knowledge of the facts of the case. In the instant case, the General Power of Attorney, a copy of which is produced for reference during the course of argument shows that the executant of the Power of Attorney i.e., Sri. H.D. Kumaraswamy has stated that he is being aggrieved by the alleged act of the accused for which he intended to file a private complaint against the office bearers of a particular association and also publishers mentioned in the pamphlets. It is because of his pre occupation and inability to appear personally in the Court and to conduct the case, he is appointing Sri. K.T. Dhanukumar as his General Power of Attorney holder. Thereafter, he has prescribed as to what powers the Power of Attorney Holder has got to exercise on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that Sri. H.D. Kumaraswamy, in whose name the Power of Attorney has instituted the complaint in question has authorized the Power of Attorney to institute the present complaint and to prosecute the accused on his behalf - in view of there being no bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C for filing of petition through the Power of Attorney, in the instant case the Power of Attorney having clearly stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512. In Paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which was in the matter pertaining to the Specific Performance of contract, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to summarize the position, as to, who should give the evidence regarding the matters involving personal knowledge, which is reproduced herein below: 18. We may now summarise for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge: (a) An attorney-holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. (b) If the attorney-holder has done by any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts, or transactions. If the attorney-holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney-holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in (2015) 12 ACC 203, in the matter pertaining to Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe at Paragraph 15 as below: 15. While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in M.M.T.C. and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani , the larger Bench clarified the position and answered the questions framed in the following manner: (A.C. Narayanan Case, SCC pp. 808-09, para 33) 33.1 (i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of the NI Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent. 33.2 (ii) The power-of-attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power-of-attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions. 33.3 (iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power-of-attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power-of-attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf . 7. Learned counsel for the respondents in his argument relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 974, wherein a complaint for defamation punishable under Section 199 of IPC against hospital by name K.J. Hospital was filed by one of its Director Dr. K. Jagadeesan (respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court). The maintainability of the said complaint, not by the hospital, but by one of its Director was challenged. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that under Section 199 of Cr.P.C the collocation of the words by some persons aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
