MARY JOSEPH, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha on 12.6.2008 in C.C. No. 3138/2003, a prosecution launched under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the N.I. Act"). The complainant is the appellant, the first respondent is the accused and the second respondent is the State. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are referred to hereinafter in accordance with their original status in the complaint as the complainant and the accused.

2. In the Appeal Memorandum, grounds are raised against the impugned judgment in the following manner:-

(i) While examined as PW-1, the complainant had narrated all crucial aspects relating to the transaction, which are necessary to prove the case. The accused had also admitted the issuance of cheque and affixture of signature therein. In such a circumstance, the offence is proved and the court below ought to have found the accused guilty of the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted and sentenced him. But, in the case on hand, the court below arrived at a finding on the contrary against the evidence available.

(ii) The court below is highly erred in entering into a finding that the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant has no direct knowledge about the transaction. The evidence adduced by the Power of Attorney Holder is complete in all respects and therefore the court below ought not to have discarded the testimony of the Power of Attorney Holder to enter into a finding that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.

3. Smt. R. Sudha, the learned counsel advanced arguments on behalf of the complainant based on the grounds referred supra and canvassed that this Court needs to interfere with the finding of acquittal of the accused and to reverse the same.

4. In the backdrop, it is relevant to have an analysis of the averments which formed the basis for launching the complaint in question.

5. The complaint to launch the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant in exercise of the authority conferred on him by Ext.P1. The averments of the Power of Attorney Holder for and on behalf of the complainant were narrated in paragraph 1 of the complaint and that is extracted hereunder for reference:-

“2. The accused issued a cheque No. 0455270 dated 01.02.2003 for Rs .1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Pampakuda branch to the complainant. The cheque was issued towards the discharge of a liability due to the complainant making the complainant to believe that, the accused is having an account maintained in the said bank and he has sufficient fund in it.”

6. During trial, the Power of Attorney holder let in evidence in chief through proof affidavit. The Power of Attorney Holder has sworn to in the chief affidavit regarding the transaction in the following terms:-

“For the amount due to the complainant the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 0455270 dated 01.02.2003 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Pampakuda branch, to the complainant. The cheque was issued making the complainant to believe that, the accused is having an account maintained in the said bank and he had sufficient fund in it. The cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant is produced as item No. 2 of the additional list of documents and the same may be marked as Ext.P2.”

7. In cross examination he has gone a step further and described the transaction in the following manner:-

It appears from the above discussion that the Power of Attorney holder, when entered into the box, rather than deposing about the transaction as pleaded by him in the complaint deviated therefrom to state the transaction as..........

8. It is true, the ar