Power of attorney complaints under cheque dishonour law remain maintainable, while complainant testimony stays necessary at proof stage.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be instituted through an authorised general or special power of attorney holder, supported by the Power of Attorney Act, 1882. The attorney may present the complaint and act in that representative capacity, but cannot replace the complainant as the principal witness at the evidentiary stage, subject to the Act's affidavit-based proof mechanism. Examination of the attorney on oath at the initial stage does not, by itself, invalidate cognizance or issuance of process under Section 200 CrPC where the statute permits affidavit evidence and further examination if directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be filed through a general or special power of attorney holder; (ii) whether examination of the power of attorney holder on oath satisfies Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and validates cognizance and process.

Issue (i): whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be filed through a general or special power of attorney holder

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits institution of a complaint through an authorised agent or attorney, and the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 supports such representation. The Court distinguished filing of the complaint from proof of the complainant's case at the evidentiary stage. It held that the attorney may present the complaint and act in his own capacity, but cannot step into the shoes of the complainant as a witness. The complainant's personal evidence remains required for prosecution, subject to the special mode of proof provided in Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: Filing of a complaint under Section 138 through a power of attorney holder is valid.

Issue (ii): whether examination of the power of attorney holder on oath satisfies Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and validates cognizance and process

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that a power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of the principal as if he were the complainant. At the same time, it held that in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the absence of examination of the complainant at the initial stage does not render cognizance or issuance of process illegal, because the Act permits evidence by affidavit and further examination if the Court so directs. The Court therefore rejected the contention that sworn examination of the attorney alone defeats the complaint or deprives the Magistrate of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Examination of the power of attorney holder on oath does not invalidate cognizance or the issuance of process, though the attorney cannot substitute for the complainant's own testimony as principal witness.

Final Conclusion: The petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failed because the complaints were maintainable through authorised attorneys and the impugned orders suffered from no jurisdictional error warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a power of attorney holder may institute the complaint and depose only in his own capacity, but cannot give evidence as if he were the complainant; yet the complainant's non-examination at the cognizance stage does not by itself invalidate the proceedings where the statute permits affidavit evidence.

---