Power of attorney complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act remain valid, and post-cognizance death does not abate proceedings.

A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed through a duly authorised power of attorney holder is maintainable, because an act done by the attorney within authority is legally attributable to the payee for cognizance under section 142(a). The death of the payee after cognizance has been taken does not abate the proceedings, as neither the Negotiable Instruments Act nor the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for abatement in that situation. Legal heirs may seek substitution and continue the prosecution, and an order dismissing the complaint on that ground was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed through a power of attorney holder of the payee satisfies section 142(a) of the Act; (ii) Whether the death of the payee after cognizance has been taken abates the complaint or prevents the proceedings from continuing.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed through a power of attorney holder of the payee satisfies section 142(a) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 142(a) restricts cognizance to a complaint in writing by the payee or holder in due course. The court held that this requirement is not defeated when the payee acts through a duly constituted attorney. Under section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, an act done by the donee of the power in his own name and signature by authority of the donor is as effectual in law as if done by the donor. The complaint filed by the attorney was therefore treated as a complaint by the payee for the purpose of cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion: Yes. A complaint under section 138 filed by a duly authorised power of attorney holder of the payee is maintainable and satisfies section 142(a).

Issue (ii): Whether the death of the payee after cognizance has been taken abates the complaint or prevents the proceedings from continuing.

Analysis: Once the Magistrate has taken cognizance by issuing process, subsequent death of the complainant does not extinguish the proceedings. The court found no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, providing for abatement in such a situation. The legal heirs may seek substitution and continue the prosecution, and the earlier order dismissing the case on this ground was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: No. The death of the complainant after cognizance does not abate the proceedings and does not bar substitution of legal heirs.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court's order was set aside, the complaint was restored, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by a duly authorised power of attorney holder is legally attributable to the payee, and the death of the complainant after cognizance does not abate the criminal proceedings.

---