A constituted attorney can bind the principal by his acts and deeds, and a principal is liable for the acts of his constituted attorney, even if the attorney acts beyond his authority.

( 1 ) -THIS criminal revision is directed for quashing of the proceedings sprang up from the complaint case No. 1468 of 1994 pending disposal before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE facts, as much as, they are relevant for the purpose of the decision in criminal revision are as follows:-

( 3 ) THE respondent opposite parties sold Indian made foreign liquor to the petitioner revisionists.

( 4 ) THE revisionist No. 2. as constituted Attorney of the revisionist, issued an account payee cheque, dated 6. 5. 94, for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in discharge of partial liabilities, drawn on UCO Bank, Sealdah. The same was, however, presented to the said bank for encashment by the respondent opposite parties. Unfortunately, the cheque was bounced off as it exceeded the arrangement revealed by the memo dated 1. 7. 94.

( 5 ) THE respondent opposite parties caused a notice to be served on the petitioner revisionists on 20. 7. 94 which went unheaded by the revisionists. The cheque, since bounced the respondent opposite parties was constrained to file the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate for an offence alleged to have been committed by the revisionists under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The process was issued against the revisionists directing them to appear before it on 3. 12. 84. The revisionists have challenged the proceedings to be non-est for the non-application of mind by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who according to the revisionist, issued process quite contrary to law. The revisionists have also attacked the complaint to be barred by limitation and the cognizance, thus, taken by the learned Court below, is not only legal, but also inconsistent with the statutory law, when this revision before this Court for quashing.

( 6 ) MR. Talukdar has argued with much emphasis that the complaint is ipso facto illegal as the revisionists No. l bore no liability under the law. She could not be dealt with under the provisions of the N. I. Act. The cheque, since dishonoured, could not attribute to her any liability either vicarious of otherwise.

( 7 ) THE claim has been studiously refuted by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that the cheque when issued by a constituted Attorney could not absolve the revisionist Nos. l and 2 either from the liability. It becomes, in the state of materials, a collective legal liability which cannot be shrived at the expense of that view. The cheque, when issued by the constituted Attorney, the revisionist No. 2, cannot relieve the revisionist No. l of legal liability as she was not the drawer of the cheque. This is absolutely a feeble plea as the cheque was issued under the authority of the accused No. l. A constituted Attorney by his acts and deeds can bind the principle. It means, a person appointed by another to do something for him. Therefore, a constituted Attorney when duly appointed under a document authorising the person to whom It is given to act in all respects as the grantor of the power, in relation to the matter specified in the document. When the power is general. It applies to every thing in which the grantor in interested. But when it is special, it applies to specific matter, such as the power to sign cheques, to make transfers, to receive money, to present documents for registration etc. Thus, the cheque issued by the constituted Attorney, the revisionist No. 2 to partial discharge of the debt deemed to have been issued under the authority of the revisionist No. l, who might be a lady. The revisionist cannot shrugg off the claim of demand of the respondent opposite parties under the pretence that the revisionist No. 1 owes no liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act, when the cheque was issued to discharge the partial liability is patent. A principle is always bound by the act of his or her Attorney so long the Attorney does not exceed his right. There is no scanty material on record which cou