Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in criminal revision case No.27/2017 (CIS No. 138/2017) whereby the learned revisional court has affirmed the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.2, Udaipur in case No.245/2016 and rejected the revision petition of the present petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) through one power of attorney holder Shri Kishore Lal Verma alleging inter alia that the cheque issued by the petitioner has been dishonoured. The cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.06.2016, the necessary proceedings commenced. An application under Section 145 of the Act was preferred with the averments that the complainant has filed the complaint through power of attorney holder Shri Kishore Lal Verma, since the matter was pending in the evidence of the complainant and the witness of the complainant has filed his affidavit.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application was submitted under Section 145 of the Act while only the complainant can file the evidence by way of affidavit. It is also averred that the affidavit of power of attorney holder cannot be taken on record but the learned court below dismissed the application under Section 145 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2015 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 483, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue which reads as under :

"23. In the light of the discussion, we are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. An exception to the above is when the power of attorney holder of the complainant does not have a personal knowledge about the transactions then he cannot be examined. However, where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot depose as a witness. Nevertheless, an explicit assertion as to the knowledge of the Power of Attorney holder about the transaction in question must be specified in the complaint. On this count, the fourth question becomes infructuous."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that since the power of attorney cannot be admitted then it cannot be considered as affidavit as could be considered as an affidavit only as per Section 145(2), where there shall be requirement of application which is not there.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent refutes such arguments and states that in the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is made clear that the power of attorney holder can be permitted to file power and depose for the purpose of issue of process under Section 138 of the Act. The question of personal knowledge is to be seen by the learned court below at the time of examining such witnesses or his affidavit.

7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the power of attorney holder is amply empowered to file power and depose for the purpose of process of Section 138 of the Act and his knowledge can of course be adjudged by the learned court below at the time of proceedings. The question of knowledge of power of attorney holder about the transaction is an open question but the same will not effect the merits of the case, even if the respondent is not allowed as a power of attorney holder then also he can be