S. Manikumar, J.

1. Vide order dated 11.05.2010 in Crl. M.P. No. 9295 of 2009 in STC. No. 590 of 2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruppur, has allowed the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed to examine the petitioner/drawee of the cheque.

2. Reading of the impugned order discloses that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been filed in the year 2005. It was returned with certain defects. Subsequently, after rectification, the complaint was taken on file in STC. No. 590 of 2007. Complainant, Ms. Nandhini/revision petitioner has filed the complaint, through her power of attorney P. Gurusamy.

3. Contending inter alia that initially when the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and returned, the complainant, preferred a police complaint to the Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur, and further contending that the said police arrested the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent has paid the cheque amount, and was released by the police, and even after receiving the entire amount, taking advantage of the cheque, a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been filed on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruppur and to prove the above said facts, respondent has filed Crl. M.P. No. 9295 of 2009 in STC. No. 590 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruppur, seeking for a direction to examine Ms. Nandhini, the petitioner herein. Though the said application has been opposed by the petitioner, drawee of the cheque, through her power of attorney. By observing that unless and until the petitioner/drawee of the cheque is examined, truth regarding payment of the cheque amount, before the Crime Branch Police, would not come to light and by examining her, no prejudice would be caused, the Court below has allowed the said petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

4. Though Mr. J. Franklin, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order made in Crl.M.P. No. 9295 of 2009 in STC. No. 590 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruppur, contending inter alia that the petitioner's power agent, is in- charge of the business transaction and therefore, he is the conversant with the facts of the case, and hence, the drawer of cheque cannot compel the complainant/petitioner, to get into the box, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contentions.

5. Though in Ground No. 3 of the memorandum of grounds, the revision petitioner has contended that filing of the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is only to protract the proceedings, this Court is not inclined countenance the said submission, for the reason that if the petitioner really intended to get a speedy disposal of STC. No. 590 of 2007, she could have very well conceded to the prayer, sought for in Crl.M.P. No. 9295 of 2009 in STC No. 590 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruppur and by this time, the case instituted in the year 2007, would have been disposed of. Moreover, if there was no truth in the facts pleaded in Crl.M.P. No. 9295 of 2009, she could have entered the witness box and deposed the truth, thereby, enabling the Court to arrive at a proper conclusion, in the trial. On the aspect as to whether, a power of attorney can speak about a fact, which is in the personal knowledge of the petitioner, the drawee of the cheque, stated to be received the cheque amount, in the police station, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions,

"(i) In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and others reported in 2005 (3) MLJ 109, the Supreme Court in paragraph 12, held as follows :

"12. O.3, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., empowers the holder of power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal. In our view the word "acts" employed in O.3, Rules 1and 2, C.P.C., confines only in respect of "acts" done by the power of attorn