( 1 ) ). The original complainant in Criminal Case No. 2203 of 1994 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad has filed the present Revision Application to challenge the order passed by the learned additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 296 of 1996 on 7th July, 1997.

( 2 ) ). Revision Applicant Anil G. Shah is the son of late G. L. Shah and he was also a power of attorney holder of G. L. Shah when he filed Criminal Case No. 2203 of 1994 against the respondent for the alleged offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short "the Act" ). The said Criminal case No. 2203 of 1994 was filed on 7th July, 1994 and the description of the complainant in the complaint is given as under : "g. L. Shah, through authorised representative and constituted attorney Anil G. Shah, "sanskrut", 2nd Floor, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. " from the above description of the said complainant, it is quite clear that the complaint is lodged by the said G. L. Shah and the said complaint was filed and signed by his power of attorney holder, namely, Anil G. Shah. It was the allegation of the complainant in the complaint that the respondent had taken loans from time to time and towards the said loan, he was owing Rs. 1,47,600. 00 (Learned Advocate for the Revision applicant says that there is a typing mistake in the complaint and the amount is Rs. 14,76,000. 00 and that necessary application would be filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to correct the said typing mistake ). The cheque which is produced alongwith the complaint clearly shows that the amount is Rs. 14,76,000. 00. Towards the said amount of Rs. 14,76,000. 00 the respondent had given cheque bearing No. 613783 dated 1-2-1994 drawn on Canara Bank, Bombay. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for its realisation, it was returned on 20-5-1994 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant had issued the legal notice as contemplated by S. 138 (B) of the Act on 13-5-1994. Inspite of the service of the said legal notice, as there was no payment of the amount of the cheque, this private complaint is filed on 7th July, 1994.

( 3 ) ). The learned Magistrate recorded the statement on oath of the complainantconstituted attorney on the same day and was then placed to issue process against the respondent under S. 138 of the Act.

( 4 ) ). On his appearance, he gave an application Exh. 4 before the learned magistrate raising a contention therein that in view of the provisions of S. 142 of the Act, the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking a cognizance of the said complaint as the complaint was not filed personally by the payee of the cheque. The learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the said contention. Thereafter, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 296 of 1996 before the City sessions Court. It was the main contention of the Revision Applicant, i. e. , respondent before me in the said Criminal Revision Application before the learned Sessions judge that in view of the provisions of S. 142 of the Act and the decision of this court in the case of Dipendra G. Choksi v. Kailashchandra C. Dhoot , reported in 1995 (1) GLR 424, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint and that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The revision Applicant before me had urged before the learned Sessions Judge that in the decision of this Court as regards lodging of the complaint by the company and there was no consideration of any question, in that case as to whether the complaint lodged by the power of attorney holder of a payee was a proper complaint and whether the cognizance of such a complaint could be taken under S. 142 of the act or not and it was found that the complainant whose name is described as a complainant in the complaint was not a payee of the cheque and the complaint did not disclose a