IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 930 of 2001(C) ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.P.NO.2472/2000 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA. .................... PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- ORIENTAL MEDICINES PVT. LTD., BALA BHAVAN ROAD, MUNICIPAL OFFICE WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V. BABU, S/O. VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, CHENNISSERY VELI, PUNNAPPRA. BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. K.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, PARTNER, GEE BEE ASSOCIATES, 7/417, THAREKKAD (GRAMAM) PALAKKADU-1. 2. K.R. GIRISH, PARTNER, GEE BEE ASSOCIATES, 5/98, INDU NIVAS, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 930 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This revision by the complainant is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Alappuzha dated February 28, 2001 refusing the power of attorney holder of the complainant to proceed with the complaint and dismissing the complaint Crl.M.P.No.2472 of 2000 and the petition Crl.M.P.No.3384 of 2000. 2. The revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 2472 of 2000 alleging an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court. The complainant is Oriental Medicines (P) Ltd., Municipal Office, Alappuzha, represented by its power of attorney holder Mr. V.Babu. The allegation in the complaint is that respondents 1 and 2, who are the partners of the partnership firm by name Gee Bee Associates, have issued a cheque dated October 10, 1999 for Rs.10,321.80 in favour of the complainant in discharge of a debt, which when presented for collection was returned for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the respondents in the bank and that in spite of notice dated February 28, 2000, the respondents did not pay the amount, which is punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Along with the complaint the revision petitioner filed CRL.RP 930/01 2 Crl.M.P.No.3384 of 2000 before the trial court through the Power of Attorney Holder requesting to allow him to proceed with the case of the complainant. When the case was posted, the power of attorney holder had not turned up and the original cheque was not produced before the court. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant ought to have sought permission of the court to file the complaint through the power of attorney holder. The above question is covered by a Single Bench of this Court in Ashalatha V. State of Kerala (2007(3) KLT 984) and by the Apex Court in Praveen V. Mohd. Tajuddin (2009(2) KLT 991 (SC)) wherein it has been held that a duly authorized power-of-attorney of a payee or a holder in due course can file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that therefore question of seeking permission under section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the power of attorney holder is entitled to proceed with the complaint. That being so, the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint has to be set aside. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated February 28, 2001 in Crl.M.P.No.2472 of 2000 and Crl.M.P.No.3384 of 2000 of the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to take the complaint on file and proceed with the case in CRL.RP 930/01 3 accordance with law. Since the matter is of the year 2000, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 30- 11-2009. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn CRL.RP 930/01 4 P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Crl.R.P. No. 930 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- O R D E R 14th October, 2009