Power of attorney complaints and cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can sustain conviction when knowledge and issuance are shown.

A complaint filed through a power of attorney holder is maintainable where the complaint expressly states that the holder knew the transaction and the evidence supports that knowledge. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admission of the cheque signature and issuance triggers the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a bare plea that the cheque was only a security cheque does not rebut them without cogent material. On the facts described, the cheque, bank endorsement, statutory notice and postal records established the offence, the acquittal was found unsustainable, and conviction under Section 138 was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint instituted by a power of attorney holder is maintainable without an explicit averment in the complaint that the holder had knowledge of the transaction with the accused; (ii) Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was unsustainable on the facts and evidence.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint instituted by a power of attorney holder is maintainable without an explicit averment in the complaint that the holder had knowledge of the transaction with the accused.

Analysis: The governing rule is that a power of attorney holder may depose and verify the complaint, but must have witnessed the transaction or otherwise possess due knowledge of it. The complainant must make a specific assertion in the complaint regarding such knowledge. Here, the complaint contained an express statement that the authorized signatory and power of attorney holder was acquainted with the facts of the complaint, and the evidence did not show lack of knowledge on the part of the witness.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable, and the objection based on absence of knowledge averment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was unsustainable on the facts and evidence.

Analysis: The accused admitted the signature and issuance of the cheque, which attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defence that the cheque was only a security cheque was not substantiated by cogent evidence. The cheque, bank endorsement, statutory notice, postal records, and complaint collectively established the ingredients of the offence, and the trial court's reasons for acquittal were found to be contrary to law and evidence.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused was held liable for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney holder's complaint is maintainable when the complaint expressly asserts knowledge of the transaction and the evidence supports such knowledge; once issuance and signature of the cheque are admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate unless the accused rebuts them with cogent material.

---