Power of attorney authority and appellate additional evidence in cheque prosecution must be strictly proved and fairly tested.

A company complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid through a power of attorney holder only if the authority chain, including any sub-delegation, is expressly and duly proved; on the stated facts, that chain was not established satisfactorily. Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 391 CrPC may be received only for the ends of justice and with reasons, and it cannot be used to fill lacunae or prejudice the accused; reliance on unclaimed notice material without giving an opportunity to meet it was therefore improper. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration with liberty to adduce evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed through a power of attorney holder was valid when the authority and sub-delegation were not clearly proved; and (ii) whether the appellate court could receive additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without giving the accused an opportunity to meet it.

Issue (i): whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed through a power of attorney holder was valid when the authority and sub-delegation were not clearly proved.

Analysis: A company acts through its authorised officers and agents, and a complaint by a company under the Negotiable Instruments Act must satisfy the statutory requirement of being made by the payee or holder in due course. A power of attorney holder can file and verify such a complaint, but any further delegation by that holder depends on an express authorisation in the instrument of power of attorney. If the resolution of the company and the terms of delegation and sub-delegation are not properly proved, the court must examine whether the complaint was instituted by a duly authorised person. On the facts, the delegation chain was not established satisfactorily and the courts below did not resolve that defect.

Conclusion: The complaint was not shown to have been instituted on the basis of duly proved authority and sub-delegation.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate court could receive additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without giving the accused an opportunity to meet it.

Analysis: Additional evidence at the appellate stage can be taken only when it is necessary for the ends of justice and after recording reasons. It cannot be used to fill lacunae in the prosecution case or to cause prejudice to the accused. Here, the appellate court relied on the contents of an unclaimed notice without giving the accused an opportunity to contest it, thereby causing prejudice and curing a defect in the prosecution case impermissibly.

Conclusion: The reception of additional evidence was improper and vitiated the appellate consideration.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with liberty to both sides to adduce evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a company complaint through a power of attorney holder is valid only when the authority chain, including any sub-delegation, is expressly and duly proved, and additional evidence at the appellate stage cannot be admitted so as to prejudice the accused or cure a lacuna in the prosecution case.

---