Authorised attorney complaints in cheque dishonour cases can sustain process without original power of attorney or oath examination.

A cheque-dishonour complaint by a corporate complainant can proceed through an authorised attorney holder at the cognizance stage on a prima facie averment of authority; production of the original power of attorney is not a mandatory precondition for issuing process. A challenge to the attorney's authority is a matter for trial. The failure to record the attorney holder's statement on oath under Section 200 CrPC was treated as an irregularity, not a fatal defect, because the complaint, cheque, dishonour memo, demand notice, and proof of service otherwise supported issuance of process. The criminal complaint and process orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be maintained through an authorised attorney holder without production of the original power of attorney at the stage of cognizance and issuance of process; (ii) Whether failure to record the attorney holder's statement on oath under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be maintained through an authorised attorney holder without production of the original power of attorney at the stage of cognizance and issuance of process.

Analysis: The complaint was filed in the name of the bank through an authorised attorney, and a copy of the power of attorney was annexed. The governing principles permit a company or other corporate complainant to act through an authorised employee or representative. At the stage of taking cognizance, a prima facie averment of authorisation and knowledge is sufficient, while any serious challenge to authority is a matter for trial. Production of the original power of attorney was not a mandatory precondition for issuing process.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed and the complaint was rightly proceeded with.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to record the attorney holder's statement on oath under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: Although the attorney holder's statement was not recorded on oath as contemplated by Section 200, that lapse was held to be an irregularity and not one going to the root of the matter. Independent of that statement, the complaint, cheque, dishonour memo, demand notice, and proof of notice provided sufficient material for issuance of process.

Conclusion: The omission did not vitiate the proceedings and afforded no ground for interference.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be without merit, and the criminal complaint and process orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque-dishonour prosecution by a corporate complainant, an averment of proper authorisation is sufficient at the cognizance stage, and procedural lapses in examination on oath do not invalidate proceedings where the record otherwise supports issuance of process.

---