Negotiable Instruments Act complaint signing rules bar cognizance on a power of attorney holder's signature alone.

A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be made and signed by the payee or holder in due course for cognizance to be taken, and a power of attorney holder cannot satisfy that statutory requirement merely by signing on behalf of the payee. The Court also held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not govern cognizance under section 142 in this context because the special statute prescribes its own mandatory complaint requirement and excludes inconsistent general procedure. Cognizance is therefore maintainable only on a written complaint by the person expressly authorised by the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be taken cognizance of when it is signed by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee, and whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern cognizance under section 142.

Analysis: Section 142(a) requires a complaint in writing by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. The Court held that, for cognizance, the complaint must be made and signed by the payee or holder in due course, and that a power of attorney holder does not satisfy that requirement merely by signing on behalf of the payee. The Court further held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to the taking of cognizance under section 138 because the special statute excludes the general procedural code, and reliance on provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code was therefore misplaced.

Conclusion: A complaint under section 138 cannot be filed by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee, and cognizance is maintainable only on a written complaint by the payee or holder in due course.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes the person by whom a complaint must be made for cognizance, that requirement is mandatory and excludes inconsistent general procedure.

---