Power of attorney evidence and doubtful debt documentation defeated cheque liability under Section 138.

In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a power of attorney holder may depose only if he witnessed the transaction or otherwise has due knowledge of it. Here, the authorised representative admitted ignorance of the loan transaction and gave a version inconsistent with the complainant's case, while the promissory note created doubt about the date and quantum of the alleged debt. On these facts, the complainant failed to prove cheque liability by cogent evidence, and the acquittal was found legally justified with no interference called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the cheque liability so as to warrant reversal of the acquittal, when the complaint was prosecuted through a power of attorney holder who lacked knowledge of the underlying transaction and the documentary evidence created doubt about the debt.

Analysis: Under the settled law governing prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a power of attorney holder may file and depose in support of the complaint only if he has witnessed the transaction or has due knowledge of it. The evidence showed that the power of attorney holder admitted ignorance about the loan transaction and even gave a version inconsistent with the complainant's case. The promissory note also generated doubt regarding the actual date and quantum of the alleged debt. In these circumstances, the complainant failed to establish the liability of the respondent by cogent evidence.

Conclusion: The acquittal was /legally justified and no interference was called for; the appeal failed.

---