Section 138 complaint defects do not upset conviction absent prejudice; sentence may still be reduced on facts.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not vitiated merely because the power of attorney holder did not specifically plead direct personal knowledge, where the complainant testified, was cross-examined, and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown; the conviction was therefore upheld. The custodial sentence was, however, reduced from six months' simple imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, while the compensation and default clause were maintained. The revision succeeded only to that limited extent, leaving the conviction intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be reversed on the ground that the complaint filed by the power of attorney holder did not specifically plead her direct personal knowledge of the transaction; (ii) whether the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be reversed on the ground that the complaint filed by the power of attorney holder did not specifically plead her direct personal knowledge of the transaction.

Analysis: The absence of a specific averment in the complaint regarding the power of attorney holder's direct personal knowledge did not, in the facts of the case, occasion a failure of justice. The complainant himself entered the witness box and testified about the transaction, the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine him, and the objection was not raised at the earlier stage when cognizance was taken. In revision, interference with a conviction is not warranted for such an irregularity unless prejudice amounting to failure of justice is shown.

Conclusion: The conviction was not liable to be set aside on this ground and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months required modification.

Analysis: Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the custodial sentence was found capable of being reduced while retaining the compensatory and default directions imposed by the courts below.

Conclusion: The sentence of simple imprisonment for six months was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, while the compensation and default clause were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of sentence modification, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act otherwise remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural irregularity in the institution of a complaint will not vitiate a conviction in revision unless it is shown to have caused a real failure of justice, particularly where the complainant has later deposed and been subjected to cross-examination.

---