..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1861 OF 2008 Shri.Sreesha M. ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Veena R. Hegde and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.C.R.Mishra, Advocate i/b. M/s. Rupali H. Nayak, for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 10th October, 2008. DATED : 10th October, 2008. DATED : 10th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in C.C. No.3463/SS/2007. The said case is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai. 3. In the said matter the complainant is Smt.Veena R. Hegde and she had filed her complaint against the ..(2).. petitioner through her Power of Attorney Holder Mr.Ramchandra Hegde. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate stating that the action of the Power of Attorney Holder in filing the affidavit of evidence on behalf of the original complainant and offering himself for cross-examination is illegal and impermissible in law and hence the evidence of the power of attorney holder Mr.Ramchandra Hegde be rejected. Reliance was placed on the observations in para-13 on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Indusind Bank Ltd., Indusind Bank Ltd., reported in AIR 2005 SC 439 AIR 2005 SC 439 AIR 2005 SC 439. The said case law is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the complainant in his complaint as well as in the examination-in-chief has stated that the entire transaction happened in his presence. He has also stated his role in the said transaction. In the case relied upon it was observed that the power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal. However, the said observation was made as the power of attorney holder did not have personal knowledge of the transaction. Hence, it was held that he could not depose on behalf of the principal. In the ..(3).. present case, it is clear that the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge and he had also played active part in the transaction. Hence, this decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case in para-1 of the complaint and in para-2 of evidence, it is specifically stated by the power of attorney holder that he is aware of all the facts of the case and he can depose in relation to all the facts from his personal knowledge. 4. It is for the complainant to prove his case by leading evidence which he wants. The accused is not at liberty to direct the complainant to lead evidence in a particular way of a particular witness. If upon merit it is found that the power of attorney holder was not entitled to lead evidence ultimately it will result in acquittal of accused. Looking to all these facts, at this stage the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)