Power of attorney complaints under cheque dishonour law are valid when the holder knows the transaction and verifies the complaint.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be filed and verified by a power of attorney holder who has knowledge of the transaction, and such holder may depose on oath where the complaint and evidence show due involvement. The absence of a separate pre-summoning affidavit or the complainant's personal examination under Section 200 CrPC does not, by itself, vitiate the complaint when the authorised holder has given a sworn statement and the complainant later testifies. The maintainability objections were rejected, and the matter was left for determination of whether the cheques were issued as security or in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be filed through a power of attorney holder and whether such holder could depose and verify the complaint on oath; (ii) Whether the complaint was vitiated for want of a pre-summoning affidavit or personal pre-summoning examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be filed through a power of attorney holder and whether such holder could depose and verify the complaint on oath.

Analysis: Filing of a complaint through a power of attorney holder is legally competent. The power of attorney holder may depose and verify the complaint if he has witnessed the transaction or otherwise has due knowledge of it. In the present case, the complaint specifically stated that the complainant's husband, who acted as power of attorney holder, had knowledge of the transaction, and the evidence showed that he was associated with the dealings at the relevant stages. The objection that the power of attorney had not been produced was found to be belated and unsupported.

Conclusion: The complaint through the power of attorney holder was maintainable and the objection was rejected in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was vitiated for want of a pre-summoning affidavit or personal pre-summoning examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Once the complaint was presented through a duly authorised power of attorney holder with knowledge of the transaction, the sworn statement of that holder at the pre-summoning stage was sufficient. Section 200 of the Code did not require a separate pre-summoning affidavit from the complainant in the facts of the case, particularly when the complainant later entered the witness box and was cross-examined. The contrary objection was treated as without merit.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to fail on this ground, and the objection was rejected in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision was set aside on the maintainability issues, and the matter was remitted only for determination of whether the cheques were issued as security or in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may validly be filed and verified through a power of attorney holder who has knowledge of the transaction, and Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not invariably require the complainant's personal pre-summoning examination where such authorisation and verification are present.

---