The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of quashing criminal proceedings and the presumption of the act committed by the holder of the power of attorney.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By the impugned order dated 30.10.2003, passed in Complaint Case No. 26/2003, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, while taking cognizance of offences under Section 138read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act") against the accused-petitioner and one Pawan Kumar More, directed issuance of summons to the accused-petitioner. With the help of the revision present, the petitioner, who is an accused in the said Complaint Case, has sought for setting aside the impugned order and also for quashing the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 26/2003 aforementioned.

2. I have heard Mr. P Bora, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. JM Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party. I have also heard Mr. FH Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. The material facts, as emerge from the record, and the various stages, which have led to the present revision, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(i) The opposite party herein, namely, Vimal Kumar Todi, a partner of M/s Sunrise Traders, instituted the Complaint Case No. 26/2003 aforementioned, the case of the complainant being, in brief, thus : The accused-petitioner No. 2, namely, Pawan Kumar More is the duly constituted attorney of M/s Nav Durga Bhandar, situated at Guwahati, of which the accused-petitioner No. 1, namely, Nilam Devi Begum (i.e., the present revision petitioner) is the proprietress. The complainant firm had business deals of supply of rice with M/s Nav Durga Bhandar aforementioned. The said proprietary business concern of the accused No. 1 received through cheques, between 19-2-2001 and 23-3-2001, advance payments of diverse sums of money from the complainant firm on the basis of assurance given by the said proprietary concern of the accused No. 1 to supply rice to the complainant firm at Tezpur. Though, in terms of the assurance so given and advance payments received, M/s Nav Durga Bhandar aforementioned supplied rice, during the year 2001, by issuing credit memo and road challans to the complainant firm, it failed to supply the rice for the entire amount, which it had received, in advance, from the complainant firm by cheques. Against the total sum of Rs. 38,42,000 received, between 19-2-2001 and 23-3-2001, by the said business concern of accused No. 1, it supplied rice worth Rs. 19,44,250 and also returned, through cheques, a sum of Rs. 5,92,000 out of the total amount of Rs. 38,42,000 aforementioned already received. Thus, a sum of Rs. 13,05,750 remained due and payable by the said business concern of the accused No. 1 to the complainant firm. The transactions, which had so taken place between the parties concerned, are duly reflected in the books of account of the complainant firm, which stands audited by Chartered Accountant. On repeated demands made by the complainant firm to repay the balance amount of Rs. 13,03,750, the accused No. 2, in order to refund the excess advance amount received from the complainant firm, drew and issued, in the name of the complainant firm, a postdated account payee cheque bearing No. 936216, dated 27-11-2002, for Rs. 13 lakh, at State Bank of India, Tezpur Branch, from the account belong to M/s Nav Durga Bhandar, the said post-dated cheque having been delivered by the accused No. 2 to the complainant firm, at Tezpur, in the month of November 2001. When the complainant firm deposited the said cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured and returned unpaid by the SBI, Tezpur Branch, along with a memorandum, dated 27-11-2002, showing that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. The complainant, once again, presented on 4-12-2002, the said cheque for collection at the said bank, but the same was, once again, dishonoured and returned unpaid by the said bank with a memorandum dated 4-12-2004, on the ground of insufficiency of fund. The com