Court upholds power of attorney in criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act

The court dismissed the M. Cs. seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the notice issued by the power of attorney holder demanding payment within statutory limits was valid. The court clarified that the power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the payee under Section 27 of the Act for both civil and criminal liabilities. It emphasized that personal matters need not be disclosed by the principal for issuing notices, and past judgments supported the validity of complaints filed by authorized representatives. The court ruled that the question of personal knowledge and evidence would be addressed during the trial, not as a basis for quashing proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on the validity of the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
1. The accused filed M. Cs. to quash proceedings for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending the notice did not comply with proviso (b) of Section 138. The notice demanded payment within 15 days of receipt, meeting statutory requirements.

2. The accused argued the notice was issued by the power of attorney holder, not the payee, which they claimed was invalid. However, the power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the payee under Section 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowing for the issuance of the notice.

3. The accused cited a judgment stating that the executor of a will cannot be a holder in due course under Section 138. However, this was found inapplicable, as Section 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act empowers agency, allowing the power of attorney holder to act on behalf of the payee.

4. The accused contended that Section 27 applies only to civil liabilities, not criminal liabilities under Section 138. The court disagreed, stating Section 27 applies to both civil and criminal liabilities under the Act.

5. The accused argued that the power of attorney holder could not further delegate the power given by the principal. However, the power of attorney holder, acting as an agent, can instruct counsel on behalf of the principal without further delegation.

6. The accused claimed that personal matters should be disclosed by the principal, not the power of attorney holder. The court clarified that matters within the principal's personal knowledge must be disclosed by the principal, but issuing notices or filing complaints can be done by the power of attorney holder.

7. The court referred to past judgments supporting the validity of complaints filed by authorized representatives or power of attorney holders under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, disagreeing with the accused's argument to quash the proceedings.

8. The court dismissed the M. Cs., stating that the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 138 was valid, and the question of personal knowledge and evidence would be determined at the trial stage, not as a ground for quashing the proceedings.

---