Cheque dishonour notice and complaint remain valid when issued through counsel on a power of attorney holder's instructions.

A demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid even though it was issued by counsel on the instructions of the payee's power of attorney holder, because the Act prescribes no special form and agency does not vitiate the notice. A complaint under Section 142 was also held maintainable where notice and complaint were prepared through counsel on such instructions, since agency is recognised and the personal-knowledge objection was treated as a matter for evidence at trial, not a ground for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The cheque dishonour proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invalid because it was issued on the instructions of the payee's power of attorney holder. (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable when the instructions to issue notice and file the complaint were given through a power of attorney holder and the advocate acted on those instructions.

Issue (i): Whether a notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invalid because it was issued on the instructions of the payee's power of attorney holder.

Analysis: Proviso (b) to Section 138 requires a written demand notice to be given to the drawer within the prescribed time, but prescribes no particular form. The notice in question demanded payment within the stipulated period and was issued in compliance with that requirement. The fact that the advocate issued the notice on the instructions of the payee's power of attorney holder did not make the notice invalid, because such instruction was only an act on behalf of the principal and not an impermissible delegation of authority.

Conclusion: The notice was valid and the objection to its legality failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable when the instructions to issue notice and file the complaint were given through a power of attorney holder and the advocate acted on those instructions.

Analysis: Section 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act recognises agency, and Section 142 requires only that cognizance be taken on a complaint in writing by the payee or holder in due course. A complaint or notice prepared through counsel on the instructions of an authorised power of attorney holder is not barred by the Act. The cited decisions supporting this view were accepted, and the contrary argument based on personal knowledge was held to be a matter for evidence at trial, not a ground for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the proceedings were not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings based on the cheque dishonour complaints were allowed to continue, and the petitions seeking quashing were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a demand notice and complaint may be validly issued through counsel on the instructions of a power of attorney holder acting for the payee, and such use of agency does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings under Section 138 or Section 142.

---