Power of attorney evidence in cheque cases: complainant can be required to testify on facts within exclusive personal knowledge.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a power of attorney holder may depose only to matters within his personal knowledge, such as acts done by him as agent, but not to facts within the principal's exclusive knowledge. Where the complainant's own conduct and the circumstances of an alleged payment were in issue, the court held that examination of the complainant could properly be directed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to clarify the defence plea and serve the ends of justice. No prejudice was shown, so the revisional challenge to the order was rejected and the complaint was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order allowing the complainant's examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be set aside on the ground that the power of attorney holder could depose to the facts and that the complainant need not enter the witness box.

Analysis: The complaint arose out of an alleged cheque transaction and the disputed question was whether the complainant alone could speak to the alleged payment of the cheque amount said to have been made at the police station. The settled position, as explained in the authorities relied on, is that a power of attorney holder may file a complaint and depose to matters within his personal knowledge, including the issuance of cheque, dishonour, notice, and other acts done by him as agent. However, he cannot depose for matters that are within the exclusive personal knowledge of the principal. In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the complainant's own conduct and knowledge regarding the alleged receipt of money and the circumstances surrounding that payment are in issue, the complainant may be required to testify. The order under Section 311 was made to enable such evidence and to clarify the truth of the defence plea; no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The direction to examine the complainant was valid, and the revision challenging that order failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge was rejected, the interim stay stood vacated, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the complaint expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a power of attorney holder may depose only to matters within his own knowledge, while the complainant can be compelled to testify on facts resting in the complainant's exclusive personal knowledge; an order permitting such examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not illegal when it serves the ends of justice.

---