Power of attorney testimony in cheque cases requires specific transaction knowledge; enforceable debt must also be proved.

In a Section 138 prosecution, a complaint may be filed and verified through a power of attorney holder, but conviction cannot rest on that testimony unless the witness either witnessed the transaction as agent of the payee or had specific knowledge of the facts. Here, the holder lacked clear knowledge and documentary support, so the complaint could not safely sustain conviction. The cheque was also not proved to have been issued against a legally enforceable debt or liability, as the underlying transaction, its cancellation, and any subsisting liability on the cheque date were not established. The statutory presumption was therefore rebutted, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, supported by a power of attorney holder who lacks specific knowledge of the transaction, can sustain conviction. (ii) Whether the cheque was proved to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, supported by a power of attorney holder who lacks specific knowledge of the transaction, can sustain conviction.

Analysis: Filing a complaint through a power of attorney holder is permissible, and such a holder may depose and verify the complaint. However, the witness must either have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee or possess due knowledge of the transaction. The complaint and the evidence did not contain a specific assertion that the holder had such knowledge, and the cross-examination showed that he was not conversant with material facts and had no satisfactory documentary basis to prove the transaction.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be safely sustained on the testimony of the power of attorney holder, and the finding favouring the accused was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheque was proved to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: Section 138 applies only where the cheque is issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The evidence did not establish the underlying transaction, its cancellation, or any subsisting liability of the accused on the date of the cheque. In the absence of reliable proof of an enforceable liability, the statutory presumption stood rebutted by the evidentiary deficiencies in the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal recorded in appeal was upheld and the revision was found to be without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a power of attorney holder can depose only if he has witnessed the transaction or has specific knowledge of it, and conviction cannot rest unless the cheque is proved to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability.

---