Sawhney, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. The respondent agreed to refund the excess amount and issued two cheques to the appellant-company for its refund.
The second application was rejected on 23.07.2018 whereupon a criminal revision was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2018.
The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Apex Court through the above decision has laid down the following principles: – i)
Filing of a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal provided he has due knowledge about the transaction (s) in question; ii) Power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath to prove the contents of the complaint if he has witnessed the transaction; iii) The complaint filed through power of attorney holder must contain an assertion/ that he had the knowledge about transactions in question; 5 iv) Functions under general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without a specific clause permitting the same in the general power of attorney. It is in the light of the above dictums of law laid down by this Court in the above case, it is to be examined if the complaint as filed is maintainable and the High Court is justified in exercise of its power under Section 482
Cr.PC to set aside the orders of the trial court and that of the Revisional Court holding that the complaint is maintainable as it has been filed by the authorised representative/power of attorney holder and that the said 6 power of attorney holder is legally entitled to depose in support of the complaint.
There is a general power of attorney of the appellant company in favour of one of its directors, Kavindersingh Anand.
8
The language deployed, i.e., to appoint special attorneys is clear enough to indicate that the power of attorney holder has been authorised to appoint special attorneys in addition to the counsel for conducting cases and for doing other relevant and material acts in that connection. Therefore, a combined reading of paragraph 2 and paragraph 16 of the power of attorney would bring home the fact that the power of 9 attorney holder was authorised to appoint special attorney other than the counsel for the purposes for conducting and prosecution of cases on behalf of the appellant-company. It has come on record that he has filed his personal affidavit dated 26.03.2018 stating that he is general power of 10 attorney holder of the appellant company and that since he is also a director, he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence is competent to pursue the litigation on behalf of the appellant company.
Case Title: MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. MAHENDRA JAIN (2023 INSC 143)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000546-000546 / 2023
