Power of attorney complaints and Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld despite defence of property transfer.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not invalid merely because it is instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder, where the payee is also examined and the authority is proved on record. The objection to maintainability was therefore rejected. The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, because the sale deed relied on by the accused did not show that transfer of immovable property was in discharge of the firm's liability. Dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, non-payment, and the accused's role in the firm and execution of the cheque supported conviction under Section 138. The conviction was affirmed, while relief was granted against substantive imprisonment on compliance with the fine direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invalid because it was instituted through a power of attorney holder and not by the payee personally; (ii) whether the petitioners rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by showing that the liability had been discharged through conveyance of immovable property, and whether the conviction under Section 138 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was invalid because it was instituted through a power of attorney holder and not by the payee personally.

Analysis: The payee was examined as a witness and the power of attorney executed in favour of the authorised agent was exhibited. The institution of the proceeding was therefore supported by the evidence on record and no illegality was shown in the manner of initiation of the complaint.

Conclusion: The objection to the institution of the proceeding was rejected and the complaint was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by showing that the liability had been discharged through conveyance of immovable property, and whether the conviction under Section 138 was sustainable.

Analysis: The sale deed relied upon by the petitioners did not disclose that the transfer of property was in discharge of the firm's liability towards the complainant. The cheque was proved to have been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, notice was served, payment was not made, and the petitioners were shown to be in charge of the firm and to have signed the cheque. The statutory presumption was not displaced and the conviction was justified.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on merits as to conviction, but the sentence was modified by granting relief against the substantive imprisonment on compliance with the direction to deposit the remaining fine amount within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not invalid merely because it is instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder when the payee is also examined, and the presumption under Section 139 stands unless the accused proves by credible evidence that the cheque was issued without a legally enforceable liability.

---