The petitioner was the accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He allegedly owed amounts to a person - I shall refer to him as ‘the principal'. To discharge that liability to the principal, the petitioner allegedly issued a cheque to the respondent herein the Power-of-Attorney holder of the principal. The Attorney, in his own name, initiated proceedings under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act as he was the payee as per the cheque. He explained the issue of the cheque in his name by contending that he was the attorney of the principal and in proof of that produced the instrument of Power-of-Attorney. That instrument is attested by a Notary Public at Calcutta. That instrument of the Power-of-Attorney and the Notarial certificate are produced before me as Annexure-II. In the course of examination, the attorney asserted that he had never gone to Calcutta to obtain the instrument of Power-of-Attorney. The petitioner contended before the trial court, the appellate court and the revisional court that he had not committed the offence under Sc.138 of the N.I. Act. That contention was not accepted by the trial court, the appellate court and the revisional