A.C. NARAYANAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 13-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 80 
AC. NARAYANAN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- ss. 138, 142 and 145 
C - Filing of complaint petition by Power of Attorney holder -
Validity- Whether a Power of Attorney holder can be verified 
on oath - Whether specific averments as to the knowledge 
of the Power of Attorney holder in the impugned transaction 
must be explicitly asserted in the complaint - Effect of s. 145 
o - Held: Filing of complaint petition uls. 138 through power of 
attorney is perfectly legal and competent - The Power of 
Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the 
Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint -
However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed 
E 
the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course 
or possess due knowledge regarding the transaction - It is 
required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to 
the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said 
transaction explicitly in the complaint - Power of attorney 
holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction 
F 
cannot be examined as a witness in the case - In the light of 
s. 145, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification 
in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of 
the complaint uls. 138 and the Magistrate is neither 
G 
mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain 
present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant 
upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue 
process on the complaint uls. 138 - The functions under the 
general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another 
H 
80 
A.C. NARAYANAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
81 
person without specific clause permitting the same in the 
A 
power of attorney - Nevertheless, the general power of 
attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another 
person - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.200. 
In terms of a reference order, the following questions 
8 
arose for consideration before this Court: 
(i) Whether a Power of Attorney holder can sign and 
file a complaint petition on behalf of the 
complainant?/ Whether the eligibility criteria 
prescribed by Section 142(a) of the Negotiable C 
Instruments Act, 1881 would stand satisfied if the 
complaint petition itself is filed in the name of the 
payee or the holder in due course of the cheque? 
(ii) Whether a Power of Attorney holder can be 
D 
verified on oath under Section 200 CrPC? 
(iii) Whether specific averments as to the knowledge 
of the Power of Attorney holder in the impugned 
transaction must be explicitly asserted in the 
complaint? 
E 
(iv) If the Power of Attorney holder fails to assert 
explicitly his knowledge in the complaint then can 
the Power of Attorney holder verify the·complaint on 
oath on such presumption of knowledge? 
F 
(v) Whether the proceedings contemplated under 
Section 200 CrPC can be dispensed with in the light 
of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 
which was introduced by an amendment in the year G 
2002? 
Answering the Reference, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no dispute that complaint has to 
be filed by the complainant as contemplated by Section 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A 200 CrPC, but the said Section does not create any 
embargo 
that 
the 
attorney 
holder 
or 
legal 
representative(s) cannot be a complainant. [Para 20] [103-
A-B] 
1.2. The power of attorney holder is the agent of the 
8 grantor. When the grantor authorizes the attorney holder 
to initiate legal proceedings and the attorney holder 
accordingly initiates such legal proceedings, he does so 
as the agent of the grantor and the initiation is by the 
grantor represented by his attorney holder and not by the 
C attorney holder in his personal capacity. However, the 
power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his 
own name as if he was the complainant. In other words, 
he can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the 
D 
principal. [Para 21] [103-B-C, E] 
1.3. From a conjoint reading of Sections 138, 142 and 
145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as well as 
Section 200 CrPC, it is clear that it is open to the 
Magistrate to issue process on the basis of the contents 
E of the complaint, documents in support thereof and the 
affidavit submitted by the complainant in support of the 
complaint.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.