A Power of Attorney holder can file a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act without denying knowledge of the underlying transaction.

ORDER

This revision petition was elaborately heard and on finding that no valid grounds exist, the parties were sent to the Mediation Centre to attend the mediation process. A report was filed by the mediator stating that the issues though mediated, were not settled. Thereupon the revision petitioner was heared again. 2. It is submitted by Sri.M.Rajesh, the learned counsel that complaint was filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant and there is no specific assertion in the complaint that he was aware of the transaction that caused the issuance of the cheque, which formed the basis for the prosecution. The learned counsel has citedPathrose V.U Vs. V.K Jeevalen and another in [2017 (2) KHC 297 ] wherein this Court has held that there is no bar for lodging a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short, 'the N.I Act') on behalf of the complainant by a Power of Attorney holder duly and specifically authorized by a Power of Attorney. He can file the complaint, appear, verify and depose before the court on behalf of the complainant inorder to prove the contents of the complaint for the purpose of enabling the court to issue process in the case.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel on the basis of the above dictum that in the complaint filed to launch the prosecution in the case on hand, no specific assertion was there from the power of attorney that he is conversant with the facts leading to the filing of the complaint.

4. In the context, this Court had read out the complaint in full to find out the merits in the submission made. The copy of the complaint, is produced along with this revision petition on hand as Annexure-1. From a reading of the first paragraph of Annexure-1, this Court noticed that the Power of Attorney holder has pleaded therein to the effect that he is the sales executive of the complainant and knows the facts of the case. Therefore, there cannot be an argument that a specific assertion that he is conversant with the facts of the case is lacking in the complaint.

5. The learned counsel has contended that despite the assertion made in the complaint about the knowledge of the case of the complainant, he failed to depose all material aspects of the complaint. The oral evidence tendered by PW1 was read in full, but, this Court did not notice any basis for the argument advanced by the learned counsel.

6. In view of the discussions made herein above, this Court is convinced of want of a just and valid ground existing to admit the revision petition. Since the revision petitioner has also availed the opportunity of getting the disputes involved in the prosecution settled in a mediation process, absolutely no purpose would be served by keeping the revision petition, pending.

In the result, Crl.R.P stands dismissed in limine.