TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The complaints were filed on 14.05.2015 and the alleged General Power of Attorney is dt.29.05.2015 executed at Washington DC, USA. Therefore, as on date of filing of the complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court below, the Power of Attorney holder is not having authority or power to represent the complainanat. Even then, the Court below has entertained the said complaints and numbered them. He has referred the copy of the complaints filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C and also copy of the Power of Attorney and by referring the same, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaints were filed on 14.05.2015 whereas the Power of Attorney is dt.29.05.2015. Therefore, the Court below has grossly erred in entertaining the complaints taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners herein. According to him, the Court below instead of returning the complaints on the ground that as on date of filing of the complaint, the Power of Attorney holder is not having Power of Attorney at all, the learned Magistrate has entertained the complaint, taken cognizance against the petitioners herein for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2015) 6 SCC 287. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinita S.Rao vs. Essen Corporate Services (P) Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 527, would submit that the complaint filed through Power of Attorney holder is not maintainable. 8. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to quash the proceedings in CC.Nos.489, 435 and 434 of 2018. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent has executed the Power of Attorney on 29.04.2015 itself. There is an endorsement of the notary of Embassy of India, Washington DC, USA to the said effect. The petitioners are taking advantage of the word typed as 'May' in the Power of Attorney and contending that as on the date of filing of the complaint, there is no GPA in favour of the Power of Attorney holder. But in fact, the Power of Attorney is dt.29.04.2015 itself. He would further submit that it is a factual aspect which has to be decided during the course of the trial. The said contention of the petitioners cannot be a ground for the purpose of quashing of the present proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pects would reveal that there is no dispute that the 2nd respondent i.e., Ravi Puli, S/o.Rajaiah, resident of USA has executed Power of Attorney in favour of B.Pradeep Kumar, S/o.B.Ramaiah. The purpose of execution of the said Power of Attorney is also specifically mentioned therein. A perusal of the Power of Attorney would reveal that the same was executed at Washington DC, USA. At one place i.e., last paragraph of the Power of Attorney, it is mentioned that the same was executed on 29th May, 2015 at Washington DC whereas in the bottom of the said Power of Attorney, there is an endorsement "Sushma Sushil Kumar, Assistant Consular Officer, Embassy of India, Washington, DC (USA), Apr 29 2015". There are two witnesses to the said Power of Attorney. There is another endorsement in the very same Power of Attorney as "S.No.1855, Seen in the Consular Section of the Embassy of India, Washington DC on this 29th day of April, 2015". There is one more endorsement which reads as "Mr.Ravi Puli, verified as per Passport No. F 3933016, Washington, DC, Issued at Sep 20, 2005". 13. According to the 2nd respondent, the said Power of Attorney was executed on 29.04.2015 whereas the complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., held as under: "19). As noticed hereinabove, though Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), relates to powers of Power of Attorney holder under CPC but it was concluded therein that a plaint by a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the original plaintiff is maintainable provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction in question. In a way, it is an exception to a well settled position that criminal law can be put in motion by anyone [vide Vishwa Mitter (supra)] and under the Statute, one stranger to transaction in question, namely, legal heir etc., can also carry forward the pending criminal complaint or initiate the criminal action if the original complainant dies [Vide Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas vs. State of Maharashtra (1967) 1 SCR 807]. Keeping in mind various situations like inability as a result of sickness, old age or death or staying abroad of the payee or holder in due course to appear and depose before the Court in order to prove the complaint, it is permissible for the Power of Attorney holder or for the legal representative(s) to file a complaint and/or continue with the pending criminal complaint for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course. However, it is expected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torney holder shall be deemed to have been done by the principal himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and legal representatives and ratified to that effect. 22. In the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. there is a specification which reads as follows: "I, the complainant herein do hereby verify that the above contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information." 23. Thus, there is a mention that the Power of Attorney holder is having knowledge and belief with regard to the transaction of facts and he has verified the contents of the complaints to the said effect. However, it is a question of fact which has to be elicited during the full fledged trial. The petitioners will be given an opportunity of cross-examination to prove the said fact that whether the Power of Attorney holder is having knowledge of facts of the present case or not. They can take advantage of the same and get acquitted. Instead of availing the same, the petitioners herein have filed the present complaints seeking to quash the CCs itself. 24. It is also relevant to note that the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent during the course of arguments has also....