This petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order of return dated 26.10.2015 passed in unnumbered Cr.M.P.No. of 2015 in P.R.No.445 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam to number the same and to pass orders on merits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-AH-0499, belonging to the petitioner's company, namely, Shanthi Transport Corporation, while proceeding towards Rajapalaym from Madurai, colluded with a two wheeler, which resulted in attacking the bus driver with stone and bricks and also broke the rear glass of the bus and TV sets. The damage caused to the bus is Rs.75,000/-.

2.1. It is submitted that the bus driver lodged a complaint, pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.234 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 336 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 149 IPC has been registered and the bus was also confiscated in P.R.No.445 of 2013. The respondent police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet and the same is pending in PRC No.445 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalm.

2.2. It is also submitted that the owner of the vehicle/petitioner, by a General Power of Attorney, authorized her Manager Baskaran to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for interim custody of the vehicle and the Power Agent also filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the bus and the same was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 18.11.2013 in Cr.M.P.No.7511 of 2013 with the condition of deposit of original RC book and Rs.20 lakhs cash deposit. Now, the petitioner is in interim custody of the petitioner company.

2.3. It is stated in the affidavit that since the Stage Carriage Permit, is getting expired on 01.01.2016, the original RC book, which was deposited before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam as a pre-condition for interim custody of the bus, is mandatory and the petition for interim custody of RC book was returned the petitioner on the ground that the authorized power agent cannot file petition before the Criminal Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. To decide the issue, this Court feels that it is relevant to refer to the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another vs. Shri G. Kamalakar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 630, while dealing with the NI Act, has observed that filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of NI Act through Power of Attorney is perfectly legal, provided such power of attorney or legal representative should have the knowledge about the transaction in question.

4. This Court also in D. Sornam vs. State of Madras Rep. by Secretary, Madras, reported in 1969 MLJ 207 and in Thayarammal vs. Pitty Kuppuswamy Naidu, reported in 1937 MLJ 552 has authorized the Power Agent to file petition in that capacity. I also had an occasion to consider whether a Power of Attorney is entitled to represent the matrimonial case, wherein it has been held as under:

“20. Absolutely, the role of the Power of Attorney to assist the principal, who will be not in a position to appear in person to prosecute the proceedings before the Court, acquires significance for consideration. On analyzing the rulings on this issue, we gather and sum up the following regarding the role of the Power of Attorney:

(i) Power of Attorney can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A General Power of Attorney holder cannot be allowed to Appeal as a witness on behalf of the principal in the capacity of the principle.

(ii) The Power of Attorney holder does not have the personal knowledge of the matter of the Appellants