Power of attorney evidence in cheque dishonour cases is limited to personal knowledge, and examination was upheld.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a power of attorney holder may depose only to acts done by him or matters within his own knowledge, and cannot speak for facts exclusively within the principal's personal knowledge. The complainant must testify to such personal matters, while the authority holder may support the complaint where he witnessed the transaction or otherwise knows the relevant facts. Applying this principle, the Madras HC found the trial court justified in allowing examination under Section 311 CrPC to elicit the truth, and no prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant's power of attorney holder could be examined only for matters within his personal knowledge, and whether the order permitting such examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on facts relating to issuance of the cheque, dishonour, notice, and subsequent events. The governing principle is that a power of attorney holder may act and depose only to the extent of acts done by him or transactions within his own knowledge, but he cannot depose in place of the principal on matters exclusively within the principal's knowledge. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the authority holder may file and support the complaint if he has witnessed the transaction or possesses due knowledge, but the complainant alone must speak to facts such as alleged payment to the police station, if those facts are within the complainant's personal knowledge. The precedents relied on were applied to hold that the trial court was justified in allowing examination to bring out the truth, and that no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the order permitting examination under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was upheld.

---