Dr. G. Yethirajulu, J.—Since both the case are under the same set of circumstances and the parties are also one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common order.

2. The petitioner in both the cases is the accused in C.C. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’).

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant field Cri. M.P. No. 775 of 2006 in C.C. No. 31 of 2004 and Cri. M.P. No. 776 of 2006 in C.C. No. 32 of 2004 requesting the Court to permit his son, being the general power of attorney holder, to represent him. The lower Court, through the order, dated 31.7.2006, passed the following order in both the petitions :

“This is a petition filed by the petitioner/complainant pray to permit Ilapakurthi Anantha Venkata Krishna Rao to represent the petitioner before the Hon’ble Court on all dates of hearing of the said case and permit him to adduce evidence in the above said case.

Heard. petition is allowed, by allowing the G.P.A. Holder represent the matter on behalf of his father (Complainant).”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate passed the order without referring to the contentions raised by both parties, therefore, it is not a speaking order and is liable to be set aside.

5. In the petitions filed before the lower Court, the complainant mentioned that he is bed-ridden and is not in a position to attend the Court, therefore, he executed the GPA in favour of his son to appear on his behalf and to give evidence. In the general power of attorney, there was authorization to peruse the civil and criminal proceedings on his behalf .

6. Though the petitioner filed objections before the lower Court, they are mere denial of the contentions raised by the complainant and further contended that the general power of attorney holder cannot give evidence on behalf of the complainant. If there is any such bar, the petitioner can take advantage of the said situations during the course of trial.

7. So far as the prosecution under Section 138 of the Act is concerned, there is a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in K.S. Ramachander Rao v. State of A.P. and Another1 wherein it was held that the power of attorney holder can file a complaint after obtaining permission from the Court either before or after filing of the complaint. Since the Court granted permission by allowing the petition, the power of attorney holder can continue the prosecution on behalf of his father. I do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings.

8. Hence, both the Criminal petitions are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.

*******