Power of attorney complaints under Section 138 require transaction knowledge and proper authority; process may rest on complaint and affidavit.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be instituted and prosecuted through an authorised power of attorney holder, but only if the holder is expressly authorised and has knowledge of the underlying transaction; an attorney holder lacking such knowledge cannot depose in support of the complaint, and sub-delegation is impermissible unless specifically authorised. For issuance of process, the Magistrate may rely on the complaint and supporting affidavit under the statutory scheme and is not required to examine the complainant on oath in every case under Section 200 CrPC, though such examination may be directed if considered necessary. The result was adverse to the proceedings where proper authorisation was absent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be validly filed and prosecuted through a power of attorney holder, and whether such holder must possess knowledge of the underlying transaction; (ii) whether, for the purpose of issuing process, the Magistrate may rely on the complaint and supporting affidavit without mandatorily examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be validly filed and prosecuted through a power of attorney holder, and whether such holder must possess knowledge of the underlying transaction.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 138 is maintainable when filed on behalf of the payee or holder in due course through an authorised power of attorney holder. Such holder may file, appear and depose in support of the complaint, but cannot do so in ignorance of the transaction. The complaint must expressly indicate the attorney holder's knowledge of the transaction, and an attorney holder who lacks such knowledge cannot be examined as a witness. A further delegation by the attorney holder is not permissible unless the power of attorney expressly authorises sub-delegation.

Conclusion: The complaint is maintainable through a power of attorney holder only when the holder is duly authorised and has knowledge of the transaction; otherwise, it is not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the purpose of issuing process, the Magistrate may rely on the complaint and supporting affidavit without mandatorily examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 145, the Magistrate may issue process on the basis of the complaint, documents and affidavit filed in support of it. Examination of the complainant on oath is not mandatory in every case; it lies within the Magistrate's discretion to call the complainant or witness for examination if considered necessary. The statutory scheme does not impose an absolute bar on filing or supporting the complaint through an authorised attorney holder.

Conclusion: The Magistrate is not mandatorily required to examine the complainant on oath before issuing process, and may rely on the complaint and supporting affidavit.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, as the complaints/proceedings were not instituted in accordance with the required authorisation and knowledge requirements, warranting quashing in one matter and restoration of acquittal in the other.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be instituted through an authorised power of attorney holder, but the holder must have explicit knowledge of the transaction and be properly authorised; for issuance of process, the Magistrate may rely on the complaint and affidavit without mandatorily examining the complainant on oath.

---