Power of attorney complaints under negotiable instruments law require pleaded knowledge, affidavit evidence, and express sub-delegation authority.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act may be signed and filed by an authorised power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee or holder in due course, but not in the holder's own name as complainant. The attorney holder may depose and verify on oath only where the complaint discloses personal knowledge of, or direct involvement in, the transaction. Section 145 permits affidavit evidence at the stage of issuance of process, so the Magistrate need not mandatorily examine the complainant under Section 200 at that stage. Any sub-delegation of authority requires an express enabling clause in the power of attorney.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a power of attorney holder can sign and file a complaint petition on behalf of the complainant under Section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether a power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath in support of such complaint; (iii) Whether specific averments regarding the power of attorney holder's knowledge of the transaction must be stated in the complaint; (iv) Whether the proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are displaced by Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (v) Whether the authority under a general power of attorney can be sub-delegated without an express enabling clause.

Issue (i): Whether a power of attorney holder can sign and file a complaint petition on behalf of the complainant under Section 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint requirement under Section 142(a) is satisfied when the complaint is made by or on behalf of the payee or holder in due course. The attorney holder acts as the agent of the principal and may initiate proceedings on the principal's behalf. What is impermissible is filing the complaint in the attorney holder's own name as though he were the complainant.

Conclusion: The power of attorney holder can validly sign and file the complaint on behalf of the complainant, but not in his own name as complainant.

Issue (ii): Whether a power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath in support of such complaint.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be supported by an affidavit, and the Magistrate may rely on that affidavit at the stage of issuance of process. The power of attorney holder may depose and verify if he has personal knowledge of the transaction or has witnessed the relevant acts as agent of the payee or holder in due course.

Conclusion: The power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath, provided he has personal knowledge of, or direct involvement in, the transaction.

Issue (iii): Whether specific averments regarding the power of attorney holder's knowledge of the transaction must be stated in the complaint.

Analysis: Since competence to depose depends on knowledge of the transaction, the complaint must disclose that the attorney holder has such knowledge. Without that foundational assertion, the attorney holder cannot be examined as a witness to prove the complaint.

Conclusion: Specific averments as to the power of attorney holder's knowledge are required in the complaint.

Issue (iv): Whether the proceedings under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are displaced by Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 145 permits the complainant's evidence to be given by affidavit, and the Magistrate may rely upon the complaint, supporting documents, and affidavit for issuance of process. Examination of the complainant or witnesses is not mandatory at the threshold and is left to judicial discretion.

Conclusion: Section 145 does not dispense with Section 200 altogether, but it enables the Magistrate to act on the affidavit without mandatorily examining the complainant at the stage of process.

Issue (v): Whether the authority under a general power of attorney can be sub-delegated without an express enabling clause.

Analysis: Delegated authority depends on the terms of the instrument. Further delegation is not inherent in the mere grant of power and requires an express clause authorising sub-delegation.

Conclusion: Sub-delegation is invalid unless the general power of attorney expressly permits it.

Final Conclusion: The legal position was clarified that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be initiated through an authorised power of attorney holder with requisite knowledge, that affidavit-based verification is permissible at the stage of process, and that any further delegation must be specifically authorised; the matters were remitted for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint may be instituted through an authorised power of attorney holder acting for the payee or holder in due course, but the holder's competence to depose depends on pleaded and actual knowledge of the transaction, and the Magistrate may rely on affidavit evidence at the stage of issuance of process.

---