AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.5.2012, passed in Complaint Case (C.P.) No. 271 of 2012, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder complaint petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. A complaint was made by the petitioner being constituted power of attorney holder of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company alleging therein that the accused persons had placed purchase orders with M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company and pursuant to the same, materials were supplied. It has been alleged that consignment of Coke worth Rs. 20,03,030.10 was sent to the accused. It has further been alleged that after much persuasion, payment was made on various dates to the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in [2013 (131) AIC 160 (S.C.)]. Before adverting to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to look to the form and contents of the complaint petition so instituted. Cause title of the complaint petition reveals the name of the petitioner acting as the authorised agent of M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company. In paragraph 2 of the complaint petition, it has been specifically stated that the complainant had been authorized by M/s Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company to take all steps and file the criminal case agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the payee, the proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor, and the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. However, we make it clear that the power-of-attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. In other words, he can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal. 22. From a conjoint reading of Sections 138, 142 and 145 of the NI Act as well as Section 200 of the Code, it is clear that it is open to the Magistrate to issue process on the basis of the contents of the complaint, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the light of the discussion, we are of the view that the power-ofattorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. An exception to the above is when the power-of- attorney holder of the complainant does not have a personal knowledge about the transactions then he cannot be examined. However, where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot depose as a witness. Nevertheless, an explicit assertion as to the knowledge of the power-of-attorney holder about the transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rified in the following manner. "26(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of the NI Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent. (ii) The power-of-attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power-of-attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions. (iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power-of-attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power-of-attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as ....