P.D. Rajan, J.

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the concurrent judgment in Crl.Appeal No. 353/2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He was accused in C.C.No. 171/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam for offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant is the 1st respondent in this revision petition, his case is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,72,000/- from him and in discharge of that debt, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing. Even after receipt of notice, there was no repayment. In the circumstances, the above complaint was filed in the trial Court.

2. During trial, complainant examined his power attorney holder as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked as his documentary evidence. The accused denied the transaction and examined DW1 and marked Ext.D1. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under section 138 of the N.I. Act and compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/- under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Against that, he preferred Crl.Appeal No. 353/2003 before Additional Sessions Judge (Spl), Kottayam and that Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

3. Sri. M.J. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that both courts below did not consider the legal points highlighted by the revision petitioner. There is misreading of evidence which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Both courts were under the impression that the power of attorney holder has direct knowledge regarding the transaction with the revision petitioner.

4. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Notice to R1 was served through Sub Inspector of Police, Pallikkathodu, but, there was no representation for R1.

5. The first question to be considered in this case is whether the Power of Attorney holder who filed the complaint had direct knowledge with regard to the transaction. In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indus Bank Ltd [2005(2) SCC 217] Apex Court held that the power of attorney holder under CPC has to act on behalf of the principal. Therefore a plaint by a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the original plaintiff is maintainable provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction in question. But the well settled earlier position in Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar [(1983) 4 SCC 701] was that criminal law can be put in motion by anyone. But in MMTC Ltd v. Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd, [2002 SCC (Cri) 121] Court had taken the view that if complaint is filed for and on behalf of payee or holder in due course, that is good enough compliance with Section 142 of N.I. Act. Apex Court in A.C.N arayanan v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (11) SCC 790] held as follows:

"28. The power of attorney holder is the agent of the grantor. When the grantor authorises the attorney holder to initiate legal proceedings and the attorney holder accordingly initiates such legal proceedings, he does so as the agent of the grantor and the initiation is by the grantor represented by his attorney holder and not by the attorney holder in his personal capacity. Therefore, where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the payee, the proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor, and the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. However, we make it clear that the power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. In other words, he can initiate criminal p