Power of attorney holders can file cheque dishonour complaints if they possess personal knowledge of the transaction; absence of such knowledge may invalidate the complaint.

Judgment :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This acquittal appeal has been filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 30.07.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2018 and in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018 passed by 5^th Additional Session Judge, Raigarh by which the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2012 and acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 in CRA No. 54/20128 of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and dismissed the CRA No. 72 of 2018 filed by the complainant.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is running her business in the name and style of Mahalaxmi Tractors through its power of attorney holder Brij Mohan Agrawal. The complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to the Act) through its power of attorney holder mainly contending that:-

(a) The accused has purchased one tractor along with tractor accessories namely Hydrolic Tractor trolley valued at Rs. 5,95,000/- on 22.05.2008 on credit with an understanding between them that the vehicle will be sold on credit in which the accused will pay 3% monthly interest. It is also case of the complainant that after providing the tractor, the complainant made all necessary efforts to get finance from Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Brank Branch, Pusour but no finance was provided to the accused, as such the accused gave a cheque bearing cheque No. 416253 of Rs. 10,40,000/- payable at Karnataka Bank, Branch Raigarh on 26.12.2009 on the pretext that some portion of the property of the accused will be sold and the amount will be deposited in the said account, as such there will be no difficulty in honouring of the cheque but the amount was not credited which has dishonoured the cheque.

(b) Thereafter, consent was arrived at between the complainant and the accused on 22.05.2008 that the accused will pay rent @ 15, 000 per month for utilizing the tractor from 22.05.2008 to 21.02.2010, accordingly a cheque of Rs. 4,00,000/- was given on 29.01.2010 payable at Karnataka Bank Raigarh which was dishonoured, therefore, a complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh which is still pending.

(C) Thereafter the accused has returned the tractor along with accessories and Hydrolic Tractor trolley on 28.06.2010 and a registered agreement was executed on 18.07.2011. As per the terms of agreement a cheque of Rs.7,75,000/- being cheque no. 366921 dated 18.07.2011 was given by the accused to the complainant which was payable at Karnataka Bank, Raigarh with an understanding that the cheque will be enchased upto 18.09.2011, failing which the same can be recovered by taking recourse of law.

(d) It is also case of the complainant that the accused has requested the power of attorney holder of complainant that his land has not been sold but he will make the payment upto 11.11.2011 to the tune of Rs. 7,75,000 and remaining amount will be paid by the accused at Raigarh only. Since the amount was not given within the time line given by the accused then the complainant deposited the same which was dishonoured and returned to the complainant vide memo dated 11.11.2011 issued by the bank. Thereafter, a notice was sent on behalf of the complainant on 08.12.2011 to the accused directing to pay the amount with15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, but the accused has refused to accept the same which has necessitated the complainant to file the complaint.

3. From the record of the case, it is quite vivid that the complaint was supported by an affidavit of the power of attorney holder as provided under Section 14