Power of attorney may file and verify a Section 138 complaint when properly authorised and knowledgeable of the transaction.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not be filed personally by the payee or holder in due course if it is instituted in their name by a duly authorised power of attorney holder. The analysis states that Section 142 requires a complaint in writing by the payee or holder in due course, but not personal presentation, and that agency principles permit an authorised agent to act where the act is not inherently personal. It further states that a power of attorney holder with personal knowledge of the transaction may verify the complaint and have his statement recorded for verification, and that the process order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be filed by a duly authorised power of attorney holder in the name of the payee or holder in due course. (ii) Whether such power of attorney holder can verify the complaint and have his statement recorded for the purpose of verification.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be filed by a duly authorised power of attorney holder in the name of the payee or holder in due course.

Analysis: Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires a complaint in writing by the payee or holder in due course, but it does not require that the complaint be presented personally by such person. The legal position on agency recognises that what a person can do himself, he may do through an authorised agent unless the act is inherently personal. The statutory scheme and the authorities relied on support the view that a complaint presented by a properly authorised power of attorney holder, in the name of the payee, satisfies the requirement of Section 142.

Conclusion: A duly authorised power of attorney holder can file the complaint and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether such power of attorney holder can verify the complaint and have his statement recorded for the purpose of verification.

Analysis: Verification serves to enable the Magistrate to satisfy himself about the truth of the allegations before issuing process. Where the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge of the transaction, particularly in the case of a juridical complainant or where he has handled the transaction throughout, his statement may be recorded for verification. The law does not require insistence on the physical presence of the payee in every case, and the defect of authorisation, if any, is not fatal where it is later rectified and the factual foundation is otherwise sound.

Conclusion: The power of attorney holder could validly verify the complaint and his statement was rightly recorded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 need not be personally filed or verified by the payee or holder in due course if it is instituted and verified by a duly authorised power of attorney holder having relevant knowledge of the transaction.

---