Hon’ble Anurag Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

On 18.5.2012, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Jeet Singh, was not present; therefore, the case was listed peremptorily in the next cause list. Thereafter the case came up on the cause list on 25.5.12. On that date also, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 was not present. Therefore, it was heard in his absence and orders were reserved.

2. This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by Sri S.K.S. Yadav, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi, in Crl. Revision No. 176 of 2003 (Jeet Singh v. State of U.P. and others.

3. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 issued a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs in favour of M/s. Krishna Securities and Investements, Varanasi, (for short, the firm). The said cheque, drawn on SBI, Asi Branch, Varanasi, was presented before the Indian Overseas Bank, Cantt. Branch, Varanasi. The said cheque was dishonoured by the concerned bank. Upon that, the revisionist-manager of the firm preferred a complaint in the Court of the Vh ACJM, Varanasi, being case No. 1667 of 2001: Col. Lal Ji Chaubey v. Jeet Singh, in which his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded and respondent No. 2 was summoned, by order dated 5.5.2001.

4. Against the said summoning order, respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 204 Cr.P.C, which was registered as Case No. 119 of 2002. This application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 9.5.2003. Aggrieved, respondent No. 2 preferred a revision, being Crl. Revision No. 176 of 2003: Jeet Singh v. State of U.P. and another. This revision was allowed by the revisional Court by its order dated 29.8.2003, setting aside the trial Court’s order dated 9.5.2003.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the lower revisional Court, the present revision has been preferred by the complainant-revisionist, Lt. Col. Lalji Chaubey, mainly on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction because the revisionist (complainant) is a power-of-attorney holder of the firm (M/s. Krishna Securities and Investments) and the sole proprietor of the firm, Mr. Krishnakant Dixit has executed in his favour a power-of-attorney to function on his behalf and he has full authority to file complainant, etc. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court is incorrect and that of the lower Court is totally correct.

6. Before going into the arguments in detail placed before me by the revisionist, it is necessary to mention certain admitted facts:

There is no dispute about the fact that respondent No. 2 had issued the cheque in question (bearing No. 700789 dated 27.5.1999) for the aforesaid sum in favour of the firm, which was dishonoured when it was presented before the Indian Overseas Bank, Cantt. Branch, Varanasi. Upon that, a notice was given by the complainant demanding the amount of the cheque. When the said amount was not paid, the complaint in question was lodged.

7. No doubt, Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) makes it clear that the Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, except on a complaint in writing made by the payee or the holder-in-due course of the cheque, as the case may be. Section 142-A makes it quite clear that this section is laying down a provision as to how the cognizance of an offence is to be taken. This provision makes it quite clear that the offence punishable under Section 138 is not a cognizable offence as contemplated by the Cr.P.C. In the case of a cognizable offence, as contemplated under the Cr.P.C., it is a well-settled law that anybody can set the law in motion by lodging a complaint, but in view of the Section 142 of the Act, the cognizance can be taken only in case if the complaint is lodged either by the payee or t